LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, J 



| FORCE COLLECTION.] | 

# — ' - - — 

{UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \ 



VINDICATION 



OF THE 



EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION: 



BY HENRY tiAJOR, 



Hector of St. Stephens' (Eljurcl), 



HARRISBURG, 






T.VAXT EROO ORIOIKES ECCLF.SI ARUM SU1RUH .' EVOLVANT ORDINKBC EFI8 ■- 
COPORCM SCORUM, ITA PER SUCCESSIONES AB INITIO DECURREXT EM, UT 
PRIMUS ILLE EPISCOPUS ALlaUEM EX AP09TOLIS, YEL AP09TOLICIS TIRIS, (1UI 
TAWEN CCM APOSTOLIS PERS EYER AYERINT, HABUERIT AUCT»BEM IT AN TE- 
CE9SOREM-. HOC ENIM .HODO ECCLEflJE AP09TOLICJK CKN9CS 9COS DEFKRUNTV 

Terlu/Iian- 



HARRISBURG : 
THEO: FENN, PRINTER. 

1844. 



BV6 6 5" 



PREFACE 



A small pamphlet has been recently published, entitled "Method- 
ism Defended, and Prelatical Succession Refuted ; being a Reply to 
* Tracts for the People, No. 4,' by Rev. A. Atwood." This produc- 
tion has called forth the remarks which follow ; and as Mr. A. has 
not confined himself to " Prelatical Succession," but attacked the 
Church upon other points, the author has been compelled to embody 
in his remarks much that is not embraced under the title which he 
has adopted. 

While he has maintained the principles of the Church without 
compromise, he has endeavored to avoid the use of language which 
could prove offensive to those of a different persuasion. There are 
many epithets in Mr. A.'s production, of which he thinks he has a 
right to complain, but he has passed them over in silence — his wish 
being, not to defend himself, but the truth. 

a It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and 
Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these 
Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church : Bishops, Priests, and 
Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend 
estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, 
except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such 
qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by public Prayer, 
with imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by 
lawful Authority." [Prayer Book. 

" O, Holy Jesus ! who hast purchased to thyself an universal Churchy 
and hast promised to be with the Ministers of Apostolic Succession 
to the end of the world ; be graciously pleased," &c. [Ib. 



CHAPTER I. 

Remarks upon u Tract No. 4" — Letter of Mr. Wesley to Mr. 
Asbury — Letters of Dr. Coke to Bishops White and Seubury, 
and to Wm. Wilberforce, Esq. 

The pamphlet which I am about to review, professes to be a 
44 Reply to * Tracts for the People, No. 4. ' " The true title, however, 
of the Tract, is this : " Methodism, as held by Wesley." The for- 
mer, is the general title of a Series — the latter, of No. 4. Who 
the author is, I know not, nor is it a matter of any consequence. 
He has exhibited Wesley's opinion of Methodism by copious ex- 
tracts from his own writings — it is the extracts that renders the 
Tract valuable and suitable for the times. Wesley was a Clergyman 
of the Church, and surely the Church has a right to publish his 
sentiments. Mr. A. has not questioned the accuracy of the quota- 
tions which the Tract gives from Mr. Wesley's works. He knows 
they are correct. He charges it, however, with a suppression 
of the truth, because it did not furnish the document which relates 
to the appointment of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, as Superintendents 
over the Methodists in this country. But why was it not furnished? 
Because the writer conceived that it could not bear the interpreta- 
tion which Mr. A. puts upon it. If it means what Mr. A. supposes, 
to have furnished it would have been no credit to Mr. Wesley, as 
it would have made him contradict all that he had preached and 
written for a half a century, (which I think the reader will presently 
see,) i. e., that he did not wish his followers to leave the Church. 
The Tract gives us this extract from Wesley's works : 

" And this is no way contrary to the profession which I have 
made above these fifty years. I never had any design of separating 
from the Church. I have no such design now. I do not believe 
the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. Never- 
theless, many of them will separate from it. These will be so bold 
and injudicious as to form a separate party, which, consequently, 
will dwindle away into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition 
to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the 
Church of England."— Vol. 7, p. 326. 

Now, from this and many similar declarations of Mr. Wesley, 
the writer infers that Mr. W. could not have intended to establish, 
by the document under consideration, a separate and independent 
organization in this country. And this, he thinks, is further evident 
from the phraseology of the document, and other reasons which he 
mentions. But whether the writer is correct or not in this inference, 
is not a matter of much importance, unless it can be proved that 
Wesley was infallible. Wesley's intending that the Methodists should 



separate from the Church, did not make it right. A very small por- 
tion of the Tract, however, is devoted to this point, and if the author 
has erred with regard to it, it was caused by his very laudable desire 
to exhibit Mr. Wesley's views as fixed and harmonious throughout 
his life. But the document referred to is not the only one which the 
Tract has withheld. It might have furnished others, which would 
have either supported his interpretation, or justly exposed Mr. Wes- 
ley to the charge of the grossest inconsistency and fickleness. And 
since Mr. A. has thought proper to spread that document before the 
public, it seems necessary, in order that a correct judgment may be 
formed of the subject, to exhibit the others likewise. Wesley ap- 
pointed Asbury joint Superintendent with Coke; and a short time 
after they reached this country, they assumed the title of Bishops, 
which called forth from Wesley the following letter to Asbury, con- 
taining a severe rebuke, (to be found in McCaine's History and 
Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy ;'' pp. 34, 35, where it is said 
to be extracted from Morse's Life of Wesley, vol. 2, p. 285 :) 

44 London, Sept. 20, 1788. 

44 There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein 
you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all 
the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Metho- 
dists; I am, under God, the father of the whole family. Therefore 
I naturally care for you all, in a manner no other person can do. 
Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all ; for the supplies 
which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not 
for me — were it not that I not only permit him to collect, but support 
him in so doing. 

44 But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the 
Dr. and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study to be 
great ; I creep, you strut along ; I found a school, you a college : 
nay, and call it after your own names! Oh, beware! Do not seek 
to be something ! Let me be nothing, and Christ be all in all. 

44 One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great concern. 
How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ! 

44 1 shudder, I start at the very thought ! Men may call me a 
knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content: but they 
shall never, by my consent, call me a Bishop ! For my sake, for 
God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this ! Let the Pres- 
byterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their 
calling better. 

44 Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart; 
and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely 

6, Iam your affectionate friend and brother, 

"John Wesley." 

This letter was written nearly four years after the alleged ordina- 
tion. And therefore, if Wesley had intended to make Coke and 
Asbury, Bishops, his mind must have undergone another change. 
If they were Bishops, they had a right to the title— and deserved no 
such reproofs for assuming it. And therefore it is evident that 






Wesley did not believe them Bishops at the date of this letter, 
whatever he had believed before. But if Wesley's objections were 
only to the name, if they have so much t; respect for his shade," 
why do the still retain it? But I shall have occasion to refer to this 
again. 

I will now give a copy of a letter which Dr. Coke wrote to Mr. 
Wesley : 

" Honored and Dear Sir, 

M The more maturely I consider the subject, the more expedient It 
appears to me, that the power of ordaining others, should 
be received by me from you, by the imposition of your hands; 
and that you should lay hands upon brother Whatcoat, and brother 
Vasey, for the following reasons : 1. It seems to me the most scrip- 
tural way, and most agreeable to the practice of the Primitive Churches. 
2. I may want all the influence in America, which you can 
throw into my scale. Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, tha: 
he saw a letter in London, from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed, 
that he would not receive any person deputed by you with any part 
of the superintendency of the work invested in him ; or words whicr; 
evidently implied so much. I do not find any, the least, degree 
prejudice in my mind against Mr. Asbury, on the contrary a very 
great love and esteem : and am determined not to stir a finger 
without his consent, unless mere sheer necessity obliges me, but 
rather to lie at his feet in all things. But as the journey is long, 
and you cannot spare me often, and it is well to provide against all 
events, and an authority formally received from you, will (I am 
conscious of it) be fully admitted by the people, and my exerei^ 
the office of Ordination without that formal authority may be dis- 
puted, if there be any opposition in any other account: I could 
therefore ear\estly wish you would extend that power, in this 
instance, which I have not the shadow of a doubt but God hath in- 
vested you with for the good of our connexion. I think you have 
tried me too often to doubt, whether I will in any degree use the 
power you are pleased to invest me with, further than I believe 
absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work. In respect to 
my brethern (Whatcoat and Vasey) it is very uncertain indeed, 
whether any of the Clergy mentioned by brother Rankin, will stir a 
step with me in the work, except Mr. Jarratt ; and it is by no means 
certain that even he will choose to join me in ordaining: and pro- 
priety and universal practice make it expedient, that I should have 
two Presbyters w r ith me in this work. In short it appears to me that 
every thing should be prepared, and every thing proper to be done, 
that can possibly be done this side the water. You can do all 
this in Mr. C — n's house, in your chamber; and afterwards accord- 
ing to Mr. Fletcher's advice, [Mr. Fletcher advised ordination by a 
Bishop] give us letters testimonial of the different offices with which 
you have been pleased to invest us. For the purpose of laying 
hands on brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. C. down 



6 

with me, by which you will have two Presbyters with you. In 
respect to brother Rankin's argument, that you will escape a great 
deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either it will be known, 
or not known ; if not known, then no odtum will arise: but if known, 
you will be obliged to acknowledge that I acted under yonr direction, 
or surfer me to sink under the weight of my enemies, with perhaps 
your brother at the head of them. I shall entreat you to ponder 
these things. 

Your most dutiful T. Coke.* 

It was probably this letter — that persuaded Wesley to " lay his 
hands" on Coke. It contains, I think, several expressions indicating 
that the writer was not fully persuaded of the lawfulness of what he 
was seeking. 

But here is a letter which throws still more light upon this strange 
affair — a letter from Dr. Coke to the late Bishop White, of our 
Church. (This letter is taken from Bishop White's Memoirs of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, first edition, pp. 424, 429:) 

" Right Rev. Sir, 

" Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of 
great importance. 

" You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the 
Church of England, and have been ordained a Presbyter of that 
Church. For many years I was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry, 
in favor of it: but through a variety of causes or incidents, to 
mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceed- 
ingly biassed on the other side of the question. In consequence 
of this, I am not sure but I went farther in the separation of our 
Chureh in America, than Mr. Wesley, from whom 1 had 
received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly 
invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal autho- 
rity, but did not intend, I think, that an entire separation should 
take place. He, being pressed by our friends on this side of the 
water for Ministers to administer the Sacraments to them, (there 
being very few Clergy of the Church of England then in the States,) 
we -t further , I am sure, than he would have gone, if he had for- 
seen some event* which folloived. And this I am certain of — that 

HE IS NOW SORRY FOR THE SEPARATION. 

" But what can be done for a re-union, which I much wish for ; 
and to accomplish which Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use 
his influence to the utmost ? The affection of a very considerable 
number of the preachers, and most of the people, is very strong 
towards him, notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he received 
from a few. My interest, also, is not small ; and both his and mine 



*" This letter is taken from an attested copy of the Doctor's 
letter, in Mr. Charles Wesley's hand- writing, and is to be found 
in the London edition of Whitehead's Life of Wesley. 



would readily and to the utmost be used to accomplish that (to us) 
very desirable object; if a readiness were shown by the Bishops of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church to re-unite. 

" It is even to your Church an object of great importance. We 
have now about 60,000 adults in our Society in these States, and 
about 250 travelling Ministers and Preachers ; besides a great number 
of Local Preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling 
Preachers ; and some of these Local Preachers are men of very con- 
siderable abilities. But if we number the Methodists as most people 
number the members of their Church, viz : by the families which 
constantly attend the Divine ordinances in their places of worship, 
they will make a larger body than you probably conceive. The 
Society, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an average 
to give us our stated Congregations ; which will then amount to 
300,000. And if the calculation which, I think, some eminent wri- 
ters have made, be just, that three-fifths of mankind are un-adult (if 
I may use the expression) at any given period, it will follow that all 
the families, the adults of which form our congregations in these 
States, amount to 750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks. 
The work now extends in length from Boston to the south of Georgia ; 
and in breadth from the Atlantic to Lake Champlain, Vermont, Albany, 
Redstone, Holstein, Kentucky, Cumberland, &c. 

" But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be 
removed? 

11 1. Our ordained Ministers will not, ought not, to give up their 
right of administering the Sacraments. I don't think that the gene- 
rality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a 
re-inordination, if other hindrances were removed out of the way. 
I must here observe that between 60 and 70 only out of the two hun- 
dred and fifty have been ordained Presbyters, and about 60 Deacons, 
(only). The Presbyters are the choicest of the whole. 

" 2. The other Preachers would hardly submit to a re-union, if the 
possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on the present 
Bishops in America. Because, though they are a//, I think I may say, 
zealous, pious and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with 
the learned languages. Besides, they would argue, — If the present 
Bishops would waive the article of the learned languages, yet their 
successors might not. 

" My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest that these dif- 
ficulties almost make me tremble ; and yet something must be done 
before the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success : 
for though my influence among the Methodists in these States as well 
as in Europe is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose 
influence is very capital, will not easily comply : nay, I know he will 
be exceedingly averse to it. 

u In Europe, where some steps had been taken, tending to a sepa- 
ration, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it. 
and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it. 



8 

" Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in Philadel- 
phia ? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th of May. 
If this be agreeable, I '11 beg of you just to signify it in a note directed 
to me, at Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant, Market street, Philadelphia : 
or, if you please, by a few lines sent to me by the return of the post 
at Philip Rogers', Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. Magaw, 
and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr, Magaw. We can then 
enlarge on these subjects. 

" I am conscious of it, that secresy is of great importance in the 
present state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother 
Bishops, and Mr. Wesley, be circumstantially known. I must there- 
fore beg that these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw, 
till I have the honor of seeing you. 

" Thus, you see, I have made a bold venture on your honor and 
candor, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject as 
far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal 
confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful. 

" I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertencies. Very 
lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience,) 
to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, which gave him 
great satisfaction : and for the same reason I must write another to 
the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew. When I was last in America, I prepared 
and corrected a great variety of things for our magazines, indeed 
almost everything that was printed, except some loose hints which 
I had taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry 
with Mr. Asbury, without any correction, entreating that no part of 
them might be printed which would be improper or offensive. But 
through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections 
on the characters of the two above-mentioned gentlemen to be inserted 
in the magazine, for which I am very sorry : and probably shall 
not rest till I have made my acknowledgment more public ; though 
Mr. Jarratt does not desire it. 

44 1 am not sure whether I have not also offended you, sir, by 
accepting one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magaw of the 
use of your churches about six years ago on my first visit to Phila- 
delphia, without informing you of our plan of separation from the 
Church of England. If I did offend, (as I doubt I did, especially 
from what you said on the subject to Mr. Richard Dallam, of Abing- 
ton,) I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I '11 endeavor 
to amend. But alas ! I am a frail, weak creature. 

,c I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim 
from your candor — that if you have no thoughts of improving this 
proposal, you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it, (for 
it would be a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, if 
we cannot unite in the manner my ardent wishes desire.) But if you 
will further negotiate the business, T will explain my mind still more 
fully to you on the probabilities of success. 



u In the meantime permit me, with great respect, to subscribe myself, 
u Right Rev. sir, 

" Your very humble servant in Christ, 

" Thomas Coke. 

"Richmond, April M, 1791. 

" The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White. 

4i You must excuse interlineations, &c, as I am just going into the 
country, and have no time to transcribe." 

This letter was written nearly seven years after Wesley appointed 
Coke, Superintendent. And it proves these points : First, That 
Wesley was urged to take that step by persons in this country, and 
the preceding letter shows that Coke was one of these persons. 
Second, That Coke went farther than Wesley intended, and that 
Wesley did not " intend that an entire separation should take place." 
Third, That both Coke and Wesley regretted the separation. 
Fourth, That Coke was convinced that he was no Bishop. No 
man would seek re-ordination, unless conscious of the invalidity of 
what he has received. But I shall recur to this again. My next 
document is another letter from Dr. Coke to Bishop Seabury, of our 
Church, upon the same subject (The autograph of this letter is in the 
possession of Bishop Seabury's son, Dr. Seabury, of the city of 
New York:) 
" The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop Seabury : 

"Right Rev. Sir,— -From your well known character I am going 
to open my mind to you on a subject of very great moment 

u Being educated a member of the Church of England from my 
earliest infancy, being ordained of that Church, and having taken 
two degrees in arts, and two degrees in civil law, in the University 
of Oxford, which is entirely under the patronage of the Church of 
England, I was almost a bigot in its favor when I first joined that 
great and good man, Mr. John Wesley, which is fourteen years ago. 
For five or six years after my union with Mr. Wesley, I remained 
fixed in my attachments to the Church of England : but afterwards, 
for many reasons which it would be tedious and useless to mention, 
I changed my sentiments, and promoted a separation from it as far as 
my influence reached. Within these two years I am come back 
again: my love for the Church of England has returned. I think 
I am attached to it on a ground much more rational, and conse- 
quently much less likely to be shaken than formerly. I have many 
a time run into error ; but to be ashamed of confessing my error 
when convinced of it, has never been one of my defects. There- 
fore, when I was fully convinced of my error in the steps I took to 
bring about a separation from the Church of England in Europe, I 
delivered before a congregation of about 3000 people, in our largest 
chapel ii Dublin, on a Sunday evening, after preaching, an exhorta- 
tion, w'uch, in fact, amounted to a recantation of my error. Some 
time a! . rward, I repeated the same in our largest chapels in London, 
and in several other parts of England, and Ireland : and I have reason 



10 

to believe that my proceedings in this respect have given a death- 
blow to all the hopes of separation which may exist in the minds of 
any in those kingdoms. 

" On the same principles I most cordially ivish for a reunion of 
the Protestant Episcopal and the Methodist Churches, in these 
States. The object is of vast magnitude. Our work now reaches 
to Boston, northward; to Wilkes county, in Georgia, southward; 
and to Albany, Vermont, Lake Champlain, Redstone, and Kentucky,, 
westward : a length of about 1300 or 1400 miles, and a breadth of 
between 500 and 1000. Our Society in the States amounts to up- 
wards of 60,000. These, I am persuaded, may, with safety, be 
multiplied by five to give us our regular Sunday's congregations, 
which will make 300,000. If the calculations of some great writers 
be just, three-fifths of any given country consists of un-adults ; so 
that the families, the adults of which regularly attend Divine Service 
among us, amount, according to this mode of calculation, to 750,000,- 
about a fifth part of these are blaeks. How great, then, would be 
the strength of our Church (will you give me leave to call it so ? I 
mean the Protestant Episcopal) if the two sticks were made one ? 

" But how can this be done ? The magnitude of the object 
would justify considerable sacrifices. A solemn engagement to use 
your prayer-book in all our places of worship on the Lord's Day 
would, of course, be a sine qua non, a concession we should be 
obliged to make on our part, (if it may be called a concession ;) and 
there would be, I doubt not, other concessions to be made by us» 
But what concessions would it be necessary for you to make ? For 
the opening of this subject with all possible candor, it will be neces- 
sary to take a view of the present state of the Ministry in the 
Methodist Church, in these States. 

" We have about 250 travelling Preachers, and a vastly greater 
number of Local Preachers, I mean Preachers who live on their plan- 
tations, or are occupied in the exercise of trades or professions, and 
confined to a small sphere of action, in respect to their ministerial 
labors. About seventy of our travelling Preachers are Elders (as- 
we call them) or Presbyters. These are the most eminent and most 
approved of the whole body ; and a very excellent set of Clergy I 
really believe they are. We have about the same number of Dea- 
cons among the travelling Preachers, who exercise the office of Deacon 
according to the plan of the Church of England. These Ministers, 
both Presbyters and Deacons, must be elected by a majority of the 
Conference before they can be ordained. A Superintendent only or- 
dains the Deacons, and a Superintendent must make one of the Pres- 
bytery for the ordination of a Priest or Elder; and the Superintend- 
ents are invested with a negative voice in respect to the ordination 
of any person that has been eleeted for the office either of Elder or 
Deacon. Among the local Preachers there is no higher office than 
that of a Deacon. The local Preacher does not pass through an 
election for this office ; but if he bring a testimonial, signed by three 
Elders, one of whom must be what we call a Presiding Elder, one 



11 

who has the government of a district, i. e. several circuits joined 
together, three Deacons, three unordained Preachers, and the majority 
of the class of which he is a member, or the stewards and leaders of 
the whole society of which he is a member, a Superintendent may 
then, if he please, ordain him ; and a great many of the oldest and 
st of the local preachers have been ordained Deacons on this 
plan. 

" Sow, on a re-union taking place, our Ministers, both Elders and 
Deacons, would expect to have, and ought to have, the same autho- 
rity they have at present, of administering the ordinances according 
to "the respective powers already invested in them for this purpose. 
/ well know' that they must submit to a re-ordination, which I 
believe might be easily brought about if every other hindrance 
was removed out of the way. But the grand objection would arise from 
the want of confidence which the Deacons and unordained Preachers 
would experience. The present Bishops might give them such 
assurances as would perhaps remove all their fears concerning them, 
but they could give no security for their successors, or ior any new 
Bishops who may be consecrated for the Episcopal Church in those 
States which have not at present an Episcopal Minister. The requi- 
sition of learning for the ministry (I mean the knowledge of the New 
Testament in the original, and of the Latin tongue,) would be an 
insuperable objection on this ground, as the present Bishops, and the 
present members of the General Convention, can give no sufficient 
security for their successors. And the Preachers could never, I be- 
lieve, be induced to give up the full confidence they have in their 
present Superintendents, that they shall in due time rise to the higher 
offices of the Church, according to their respective merits, for any 
change of situation in which the confidence they should then 
possess would not be equivalent. 

M But what can be done to gain this confidence on the plan of a re- 
union of the two Churches? I will answer this important question 
with all simplicity, plainness, and boldness; and the more so, be- 
cause, 1st, I am addressing myself, I have no doubt, to a person of 
perfect candor ; 2dly, 1 have a re-union so much at heart, that I 
would omit nothing that may, according to the best of my judgment, 
throw light on the subject ; 3dly, Because I think I am not in dan- 
ger from your charitable spirit, to be suspected in the present instance, 
of pressing after worldly honor; as it is likely I shall be elected 
President of the European Methodists, and shall not, I believe, re- 
ceive greater marks of respect from the Methodists in these States, 
supposing I ever to be a Bishop of the Protectant Episcopal 
Church, than they are at present so kind as to show me. 

** Mr. Asbury, our resident Superintendent, is a great and good man. 
He possesses, and justly, the esteem of most of the Preachers, and 
most of the people. Now if the General Convention of the Clergy 
consented that he should be consecrate! a Bishop of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, on the supposition of a re-union, a very capital 
hindrance would be removed out of the v 



12 

11 Again, I love the Methodists in America, and could not think of 
leaving them entirely, whatever might happen to me in Europe. The 
Preachers and People also love me. Many have a peculiar regard for 
me. But I could not, with propriety ', visit the American Methodists, 
possessing in our Church on this side of the water an office inferior 
to that of Mr. Asbury. 

" But if the two houses of the Convention of the Clergy would 
consent to your consecration of Mr. Asbury and me as Bishops of 
the Methodist Society in the Protestant Episcopal Church in these 
United States, (or by any other title, if that be not proper,) on the 
supposition of a re-union of the two Churches, under proper mutual 
stipulations ; and engage that the Methodist Society shall have a re- 
gular supply, on the death of their Bishops, and so, ad per petuum the 
grand difficulty in respect to the Preachers would be removed — they 
would have the same men to confide in whom they have at present, 
and all other mutual stipulations would soon be settled. 

u I said, in respect to Preachers, for I do not fully know Mr. 
Asbury's mind on the subject. I have my fears in respect to his 
sentiments ; and if he do not accede to the union, it will net take 
place so completely as I could wish. I wish you could see my sin- 
ful heart, but that is impossible. 

" I think I need not observe that, if things were brought to a happy 
issue, we should still expect to enjoy all our rights as a Society in the 
most exclusive sense, as we do now in Europe : I mean the receiving 
or rejecting members in or from our classes, bands, lovefeasts, &c. 

u I have had the honor of three interviews with Bishop White on 
this subject, and some correspondence. In the present state of things 
I must entreat you to lay this business only before your confidential 
friends ; and if you honor me with a letter by the June packet, di- 
rected to the Rev. Dr. Coke, at the new chapel, City road, London, 
I will write to you again immediately after the English Conference, 
which will commence in Manchester on the last Tuesday in next 
July. The importance of the subject on which I have now written 
to you, will, I think, prevent the necessity of an apology for the 
liberty I have taken in writing to you. 

" Permit me to subscribe myself, with great respect, Right Rev. 
Sir, your very humble and obedient servant, 

" Thomas Coke. 

"Philadelphia, May 14, 1791." 

This letcer was written a few weeks after the one to Bishop White. 
It is another proof of the Doctor's repentance — of his earnest desire to 
return (together with his people) into the bosom of the Church — and 
that neither he nor Asbury had any title to the office of Bishop ; for 
let the reader note that what he especially requests is, that they 
might both be consecrated Bishops. 

But the Doctor was very persevering. He made a third applica- 
tion to obtain the Episcopal office, as appears from the following 
letter to Wm. Wilberforce, Esq. (This may be found in the u Cor- 
respondence of Wilberforce," vol. 2, pp. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 :) 



13 

"At Samuel Hague's, Esq., Leeds, April 14, 1813. 
u Dear and highly respected Sir, 

" A subject which appears to me of great moment lies much upon 
my mind ; and yet it is a subject of such a delicate nature, that I 
cannot venture to open my mind upon it to any one, of whose can- 
dor, piety, delicacy, and honor, I have not the highest opinion. Such 
a character I do indubitably esteem you, sir ; and as such, I will run 
the risk of opening my whole heart„to you upon the point. 

" For at least twelve years, sir, the interests of our Indian empire 
have lain very near my heart. In several instances I have made 
attempts to open a way for missions in that country, and even for my 
going over there myself. But every thing proved abortive. 

u The prominent desire of my soul, even from my infancy, (I may 
almost say) has been to be useful. Even when I was a Deist for 
part of my time at Oxford, (what a miracle of grace !) usefulness 
was my most darling object. The Lord has been pleased to fix me 
for about thirty-seven years on a point of great usefulness. My in- 
fluence in the large Wesleyan connexion, the introduction and super- 
intendence of our missions in different parts of the globe, and the 
wide sphere opened to me for the preaching of the Gospel to almost 
innumerable large and attentive congregations, have opened to me a 
a very extensive field for usefulness. And yet I could give up all for 
India. Could I but close my life in being the means of raising a 
spiritual Church in India, it would satisfy the utmost ambition of my 
soul here below. 

" I am not so much wanted in our connexion at home as I once 
was. Our Committee of Privileges, as we term it, can watch over 
the interests of the body, in respect to laws and government, as well 
in my absence, as if I was with them. Our Missionary Committee 
in London can do the same in respect to missions ; and my absence 
would only make them feel their duty more incumbent upon them. 
Auxilliary committees through the nation, which we have now in 
contemplation, will amply supply my place, in respect to raising mo- 
ney. There is nothing to influence me much against going to India, 
but my extensive sphere for preaching the Gospel. But this, I do 
assure you, sir, sinks considerably in my calculation, in comparison 
of the high honor (if the Lord was to confer it upon me in His Pro- 
vidence and Grace) of beginning or reviving a genuine work of religion 
in the immense regions of Asia. 

" Impressed with these views, I wrote a letter about a fortnight 
ago to the Earl of Liverpool. I have either mislaid the copy of it, 
or destroyed it at the time, for fear of its falling into improper hands. 
After an introduction, drawn up in the most delicate mann« r in my 
power, I took notice of the observations made by Lord Castlereagh 
in the House of Commons, concerning- a religious establishment in 
India connected with the Established Church at home. I then sim- 
ply opened my situation in the Wesleyan connexion, as I have stated 
it to you, sir, above. I enlarged on the earnest desire I had of closing 
my life in India, observing that if his Royal Highness the Prince 



14 

Recent and the Government should think proper to appoint me their 
Bishop in India, I should mc^st cheerfully and most gratefully accept 
the offer. I am sorry I have lost the copy of the letter. In my let- 
ter to Lord Liverpool, I observed, that I should, in case of my ap- 
pointment to the Episcopacy of India, return most fully and faithfully 
into the bosom of the Established Church, and do every thing in my 
power to promote its interest, and would submit to all such restrictions 
in the fulfilment of my office, as the Government and the Bench of 
Bishops at home should think necessary — that my prime motive was 
to be useful to the Europeans in India ; and that my second, though 
not the least, was to introduce the Christian religion among the Hin- 
does by the preaching of the Gospel, and peihaps, also, by the 
establishment of schools. 

" I have not, sir, received an answer. Did I think that the answer 
was withheld., because Lord Liverpool considered me as acting very 
improperly by making the request, I should take no further step in 
the business. This may be the case ; but his Lordship's silence may 
arise from other motives : on the one hand, because he did not choose 
to send me an absolute refusal; and, on the other hand, because 
he did not see it proper, at least just now, to give me any 
encouragement. When I was in some doubt this morning whether 
I ought to take the liberty of writing to you, my mind became deter- 
mined on my being informed about three hours ago, that in a letter 
received from you by Mr. Hey, you observed that the generality of 
the House of Commons were set against granting anything of an 
imperative kind to the Dissenters or Methodists in favor of sending 
Missionaries to India. Probably I may err in respect to the exact 
words which you used. 

" I am not conscious, my dear respected sir, that the least degree 
of ambition influences me in this business. I possess a fortune of 
about 1200/. a-year, which is sufficient to bear my travelling expen- 
ses, and to enable me to make many charitable donations. I have 
lost two dear wives, and am now a widower. Our leading friends 
through the connexion receive me and treat me with the utmost 
respect and hospitality. I am quite surrounded with friends who 
greatly love me ; but India still cleaves to my heart. I sincerely 
believe that my strong inclination to spend the remainder of my life 
in India originates in the Divine Will, whilst I am called upon to use 
the secondary means to obtain the end. 

"I have formed an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Buchanan, and 
have written to him to inform him that I shall make him a visit within 
a few days, if it be convenient. From his house I intend, Deo 
volentc, to return to Leeds, for a day, and then to set off next week 
for London. The latter end of last November I visited him before, 
at Moat Hall, his place of residence, and a most pleasant visit it was 
to me, and also to him, I have reason to think. He has been, since 
I saw him, drinking of the same bitter cup of which I have been 
drinking, by the loss of a beloved wife. 



15 

u I would just observe, sir, that a hot climate peculiarly agree? 
with me. I was never better in my life than in the West Indies, 
during the four visits I made to that archipelago, and should now 
prefer the torrid zone, as a climate, to any other part of the world. 
Indeed, I enjoy in this country, though sixty-five years of age, such 
an uninterrupted flow of health and strength as astonishes all my 
acquaintance. They commonly observe that they have perceived 
no difference in me for these last twenty years. 

" I would observe, sir, as I did at the commencement of my letter, 
that I throw myself on your candor, piety, and honor. If I do no: 
succeed in my views of India, and it were known among the Preach- 
ers that I had been taking the steps that I am now taking, (though 
from a persuasion that I am in the Divine Will in so doing,) it might 
more or less affect my usefulness in the vineyard of my Lord, anc 
that would very much afflict me. And yet, notwithstanding this, I 
cannot satisfy myself without making some advances in the business. 
I consider, sir, your brother-in-law, Mr. Stephen, to be a man of 
eminent worth. I have a very high esteem for him. I know tha: 
his yea is yea, and what he promises he certainly will perform. 
Without some promise of confidence he might, if he were acquaintec 

with the present business, mention it to Mr. , with whom, I 

know, Mr. Stephen is acquainted. If Mr. were acquaintec 

with the steps I am taking, he would, I am nearly sure, call immedi- 
ately a meeting of our Committee of Privileges, and the consequence 
might be unfavorable to my influence, and consequently to my useful- 
ness among the Methodists. But my mind must be eased. I musi 
venture this letter, and leave the whole to God, and under Him, sir, 
to you. 

"I have reason to believe that Lord Eldon had, (indeed I am sure 
of it,) and probably now has, an esteem for me- Lord Sid mouth I 
do think loves me. Lord Castlereagh once expressed to Mr. Alexan- 
der Knox, then his private Secretary in Ireland, his very high regard 
for me: since that time I have had one interview with his lordship in 
London. I have been favored on various occasions with public and 
private interviews with Lord Bathurst. I shall be glad to have your 
advice whether I should write letters to those noblemen: particularly 
to the two first, on the present subject; or whether I had not better 
suspend every thing, and have the pleasure of seeing you in London. 
I hope I shall have that honor. I shall be glad to receive three or 
four lines from you, (don't write unless you think it may be of some 
immediate importance,) signifying that I may wait on you immedi- 
ately on my arrival in London. 

u I have the honor to be, with very high respect, 
" My dear Sir, your very much obliged, 
"very humble, and very faithful servant, 

"T. Coke." 

1 shall now leave this subject for the present, intending to recur to 
it again. 

Mr. A. has committed several mistakes with regard to our Church. 



15 

in that portion of his Tract which relates to this subject. He say* 
that at the time of the pseudo*ordination by Wesley, (1784) " Pro- 
testant Episcopalians, as such, did not exist in this country." Epis- 
copalians at that time, were the same body as previously existed 
before the Revolution. They always maintained this principle, and 
our General Convention declared the same. And according to those 
principles, which have governed the Church in all ages, the Metho- 
dists were bound to continue with them, especially after we obtained 
valid Bishops. Again, he says: ''Their Church was not formed 
till some years after. And then, with much difficulty, did they obtain 
ordination of an English Bishop." I have already said that our 
Church, after the Revolution, was the same body that existed previ- 
ously. Some modification, however, became necessary. But that 
was arranged, not ." several years after" but some time before Wes- 
ley "laid his hands on Coke." And our first Bishop was consecrated. 
not "several years after," but the very same year. Again : he says 
that Episcopalians, as well as the Methodists, had to set up for 
themselves/' Episcopalians did not set up for themselves. They 
were u set up" by those who had authority- — by the successors of the 
Apostles. Our Church is not a recent creation, such as Metho- 
dism. It is an extension of the " One Catholic and Apostolic: 
Church,"* " against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail." 



CHAPTER II. 



The Principle of Succession not Uncharitable — Scripture Proofs 
Considered — Quotations from the Fathers Examined — Their 
Testimony in favor of Episcopacy. 

Mr. A. endeavors at the outset, to excite prejudice against the 
doctrine of Succession, by representing it as "uncharitable," "ex- 
elusive," and " consigning all others to the u-ncovenanted mercies of 
God." But this is not argument. It is a begging of the question, 
The question is, whether the commission to ordain others, which the 
Saviour gave to his Apostles, has been transmitted to our times in 
the line of Bishops. If it has, then the doctrine of Apostolical 
Succession is true. And, if true, it cannot be uncharitable to main- 
tain it; for Truth and Charity can never be opposed to one another. 
They always go hand in hand. Truth is invariably beneficial tc* 
Man — and, therefore, to embrace, maintain and defend it, is the very 
essence of Charity. And as to its being exclusive — Truth is neces- 
sarily exclusive of what is false. Christianity itself is exclusive — - 
it excludes all other Religions. The doctrine of the Trinity is 
exclusive — it excludes a large community of professing Christians. 
and yet, Mr. A. holds and preaches it. And as to its " consigning 
ail others to the uncovenanted mercies of God," (though we have 

* The Second General Council, held at Constantinople, A.D. 39I 7 
applied this term to the Church. 



17 

never said so,) Christianity does the same. What would Mr. A. 
think of an Infidel who should begin to " refute " Christianity 
by urging such objections? But if this doctrine be not true, it is a 
mistake of the judgment, and, even then it is not uncharitable — for 
Charity is an affection of the heart. 

There is but one condition in which these offensive epithets of 
Mr. A. would be correctly applicable, and that is, if we claimed the 
Succession without believing in it ourselves. But this he does not 
assert, or even intimate, nor could he do so, having no proof, without 
a gross violation of Charity. For these reasons his introductory re- 
marks, upon this point, are wholly irrelevant, and, indeed, unfair ; 
for they are calculated to excite prejudice, both against the doctrine 
and those who hold it. All men, and especially Christian Ministers, 
should seek to promote Truth and Love—both of which are always 
obstructed by Prejudice. This mode of attack, I am sorry to have 
to say, has become very common ; but, though it succeed for a time, 
it must ultimately recoil upon those who adopt it. 

I will now proceed to examine Mr. A's. argument. He says : "We 
are prepared to show that the New Testament, and all the Fathers, 
for the first three hundred years of the Christian era, and almost all 
subsequent Divines, unite in declaring that Bishops and Presbyters 
are the same. That neither Jesus Christ nor His Apostles ever 
appointed a third Order of Ministers." In support of this position, 
he adduces several passages of Scripture. But, all that these 
passages prove, (which is all that he intends,) is, that in the New 
Testament, the terms Bishop and Presbyter are applied to the same 
order. And, after drawing this inference, and uttering a few expres- 
sions of triumph, he dismisses the Scriptural argument in the most 
abrupt and summary manner. But he surely has read very little 
upon the subject, if he does not know (as it seems) that Episcopa- 
lians grant all this. The terms Presbyter, Elder and Bishop are 
indifferently applied in Scripture to the same Order of Ministers. 
But what does this avail him ? The question is not one of words 
and names, but of office, rank and authority. In New Testament 
language, all Christians are called u Saints." But now, only those 
of extraordinary piety. The word Sabbath means only the seventh 
day of the week — whereas, now it is very commonly applied to the 
first. Thus, in these and other instances which might be specified, 
we now use words in a sense very different from what they bear in 
the New Testament. The terms Presbyter and Elder are perfectly 
synonymous ; the former being a Greek word with an English 
termination, but possessing the same signification as the English 
word Elder. The term Bishop is a translation of the Greek word 
Episcopos, which signifies Overseer or Superintendent. As the 
Pastor of a Congregation was generally, though not invariably, a man 
somewhat advanced in life, he was called an Elder ; and as one 
having the superintendence of a flock, he was called a Bishop or 
Overseer. These terms, then, as the reader may infer from their 
2* 



18 

meaning, were not invented in the days of the New Testament 
writers, and applied exclusively to the office of the Ministry. They 
had been in use long before. And, since the terms were not peculiar 
to the office to which they were applied, we cannot expect them to 
indicate, precisely, the rank of the office. Time and long usage 
are generally necessary to give words a distinct aiul fixed meaning in 
a system. Accordingly, the terms applied in the New Testament to 
the various orders <of the Ministry, were not then fully settled. This 
is evident from the very passages of Scripture quoted by Mr. A. and 
from others that might be adduced. He affirms, and very correctly, 
that the terms Bishop and Presbyter, in these passages, signify one 
and the same order of men. And obviously, if two different words 
were applied to the same office, the specific title of the office could 
not have been settled. The term Deacon is as often applied in the 
New Testament to Apostles and Presbyters, as to the office which it 
now exclusively designates. See I Cor. 3 : 5 : 4i Who then is Paul, 
and who Apollos, but Ministers (the original is Deacons, literally 
translated) by whom ye believed?" And 2 Cor. 3:6: " Who also 
hath made us able Ministers (Deacons) of the New Testament ?" 
See, also, 2 Cor. 6 : 4, 1 Thess. 3: 2. Where the word Minister 
signifies Deacon, Mr.A's. argument is, that since the New Testa- 
ment applies the terms Bishop and Presbyter to one Order, therefore, 
there was no higher Order than that of Presbyter. According to this 
mode of reasoning, it would follow that there was no higher order 
than Deacon, since that term is applied to the Apostles and other 
Ministers, indiscriminately. This alone, conclusively proves that 
nothing can be inferred from names — that they were not then fixed. 
Episcopalians maintain that the Apostles occupied the first or highest 
grade in the Ministry, and those called Bishops and Presbyters 
the second, and those called Deacons, the third. And that the 
Apostles bestowed the power of ordination and superintendence upon 
some of these Presbyters, who towards the close of the Apostolic 
Age, obtained exclusively the title of Bishop, and the other Presbyters 
exclusively the title of Presbyters, and thus the terms became fixed. 
This is admitted by Videlius,* a non-Episcopal writer. He says of 
Clemens Romanus : (mentioned by St. Panl, Phil., 4:3:) "Clemens 
solus Episcopii nomen retinuitquiajam invaluerat distinctio Episcopii 
et Presbyterii." Clemens alone retained the name of Bishop, because 
there had now grown into use the distinction between Bishop and 
Presbyter; i. e. that it had then become common to apply, these 
terms to different orders of men. And since Clemens became Bishop 
of Rome, a few years before the death of St. John, this " distinction" 
was made within, though, as before said, towards the close of, the 
Apostolic Age. In support of this change in the application of the 
term Bishop, we have the testimony of several Primitive writers, 
Theodoret says: "The same persons were anciently called pro- 

*See the answer of Charles I. to the Divines who argued with 
him in the Isle of Wight, p. 11. 



19 

miscuously both Bishops and Presbyters, whilst those who are 
now called Bishops, were called Apostles. But shortly after, the 
name of Apostles were appropriated to such only as were Apostles, 
indeed ; and then the name of Bishop was given to those who before 
were called Apostles." (Theodoret, Com. on 1 Tim. 3 : 1.) St. 
Hilary says : u They who are now called Bishops, were originally 
called Apostles ; but, the holy Apostles being dead, those who were 
ordained after them, could not arrive at the excellency of the first, 
therefore, they thought it not becoming to assume the name of Apostle. 
But, dividing the name Presbyter and Bishop, they left the Presbytery 
the name Presbyter, and they themselves were called Bishops." 
(See Bingham's Grig. Eccles. Lib. 2:2: Sec. 1.) Here, surely, is 
a full and satisfactory explanation. 

That a change has occurred, no one will dispute. According to 
Mr. A. the terms Bishop and Presbyter, in the New Testament, are 
applied to the same office. But every one knows that they are not 
now used indiscriminately, either by us or our non-Episcopal 
brethren. Mr. A. himself is called Presbyter or Elder, but not 
Bishop — whereas, in the New Testament, our Elder is called a 
Bishop. I know he thinks himself a Bishop, but, he is not called 
so. Among several thousand Methodist Preachers, there are but six 
or eight who are designated by this title. Hence, even among them 
this word is employed differently from what it is in the New Testa- 
ment. 

If Mr, A. had endeavored to prove that these Bishops and 
Presbyters of the New Testament, occupied the highest grade of 
the Ministry, instead of attempting to prove what no one denies — his 
remarks might have been, at least, relevant. Episcopalians maintain 
that there was a distinct and higher order of men, who alone 
possessed the power of ordination, and who have transmitted it to 
our times — the Apostles of our Lord. Under the Mosaic Dispensa- 
tion, we find a three-fold Ministry with these titles: High Priest, 
Priests, and Levites ; in the days of our Saviour, Christ himself, 
the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples ; after the Ascension, 
the twelve Apostles, the Bishops, Presbyters and the Deacons. 
Towards the close of the Apostolic age, the names became finally 
settled, as they now are : Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. We 
maintain, then, that the Apostles alone ordained — and those called 
Elders, never — that the Apostles invested Timothy, Titus and others 
with the ordaining power, and thus it has descended to the present 
time. But, as Mr. A. has not even assailed this point, and as it 
would occupy much more space than we can spare to exhibit the 
proofs of it, I must content myself with referring the reader who 
wishes to examine it, to full treatises upon Episcopacy. 
Testimony of the Fathers. 
!r. A. begins with a quotation from a writer who lived in the 
fourth century — Jerome — passing over some thirty or forty who 
flourished between him and the Apostles. Besides, he neglected to 
tell us in what part of Jerome's writings the quotation is to be found, 



20 

However, since the passage is wholly irrelevant, we will excuse him. 
If the reader will turn to it, he will perceive that like the Scripture 
quotations which Mr. A. adduces, it only asserts (what no one 
denies) that at first, the terms Bishop and Presbyter were applied 
to one order. •* This was the case," he says, u before the devil 
incited men to make divisions in Religion, and one was led to say "/ 
am of Paul, and I ofApollos" Now, I need not inform my readers 
when this was, as there is an obvious reference to the contentions 
among the Corinthian converts, which St. Paul so sharply rebukes 
in one of his Epistles ; and, consequently, it was long before the close 
of the Apostolic age. And that at that time they were one, is not 
disputed. Jerome continues : "But afterward when any one in 
Baptizing, rather made Proselytes to himself than to Christ, it was 
every where decreed that one person elected from the rest of the 
Presbyters in each Church, should be placed over the others — that 
the chief care of the Church devolving upon him, the seeds of 
division might be taken away." This does not, in the least, conflict 
with the claims of Episcopalians, but, rather sustains them — because, 
if Jerome means that a new order of Ministers was set over the 
Elders, his language is perfectly consistent with — yea, favors the 
supposition that it was done by the Apostles — since he represents 
the divisions referred to by St. Paul as the cause. And therefore 
it does not invalidate, (as Mr. A. insinuates,) but confirms the " Di- 
vine right" of the superior order — for an order created by the 
Apostles must have been by " Divine right." Mr. A. has italicised 
the word elected, as if those placed over the Presbyters were only 
elected, which by no means follows. Jerome merely asserts that 
these chief officers were chosen from among the Presbyters, which 
is the practice in our Church to this day. Ordination, of course, 
followed Election, according to the invariable regulations of the 
Church. But Mr. A. says it was merely a measure of expediency, 
not of law. And is not every positive institution a measure of expe- 
diency ? Whatever God institutes — whether directly, or by the 
agency of inspired men — must be both a matter of expediency and 
a matter of law. It further must be of perpetual obligation, unless 
obviously temporary in its nature, or repealed by the same authority 
— neither of which is the case in this instance. But it is useless 
to multiply words upon a passage which is perfectly consistent with 
our claims. When our opposers resort to such passages, their intel- 
ligent readers cannot fail to suspect that proof is very scarce. Jerome 
maintains all that we want — that an order superior to that of Presby- 
ter was established in the days of the Apostles. His writings 
contain several passages in support of three Orders of the Ministry, 
He says : " Without the Bishop's license, neither Presbyter nor 
Deacon has a right to baptise." Again, he says : " For what does a 
Bishop, which a Presbyter may not do, excepting ordination ¥"* 
This shows clearly that Presbyters, according to Jerome, have no 
right to ordain. He further testifies in our favor, that the Bishops 

* Epistle to Evangelus. 



21 

are the successors of the Apostles : addressing the Church, he says: 
" The Apostles were thy fathers, because that they begat thee. But 
now that they have left the world, thou hast in their stead their sons, 
the Bishops." Once more : " It is the custom of the Church for 
Bishops to go and invoke the Holy Spirit, by imposition of hands, 
on such as were baptised by Presbyters and Deacons." " Do you 
ask," says he, "where this is written? In the Acts of the Apos- 
tles." (Dialog, adv. Lucif.) This passage is important, not only 
as maintaining the three orders, but also the Scripturalness of the 
right of Confirmation, which Methodism has set aside.* 

Mr. A. next quotes Clemens Romanus. But unfortunately, the 
passage is as irrelevant as that from Jerome — it merely asserts that 
the Apostles " appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be 
Bishops and Deacons." Clemens lived in the days of the Apostles, 
when the Presbyters were often called Bishops, as before remarked ; 
hence he gives them that title. The Apostles themselves were the 
Bishops in the sense in which the word is now used. As they ga- 
thered Congregations, they ordained for them Presbyters and Deacons, 
which were sufficient for some time — as they themselves exercised a 
superintendence over them until, by the increase of their numbers, a 
setiled Bishop became necessary. But farther comment is unneces- 
ry, as the following passage from Clemens exhibits his opinions fully: 
" It will behoove us, looking into the depth of Divine knowledge, 
to do all things in order whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to 
do. He has ordained, by His Supreme will and authority, both 
where and by what persons they (the sacred services) are to be per- 
formed. For the Chief Priest has his proper services ; and to the 
Priests their proper place is appointed : and to the Levites appertain 
their proper Ministries ; and the laymen is confined within the 
bounds of what is commanded to laymen," (Epis. Cor. § 40.) 

Here he calls the three orders of the Ministry, by the names 
of the old Priesthood — a practice very common with the Fathers. 
Mr. A.'s next witness is Ignatius. This Father, according to the 

*Dr. Adam Clarke's Views of Confirmation. — In the first vol. 
of the Life of Dr. Clarke, as published by the Methodist Book Con- 
cern of lN"ew York, in 2833, the Doctor gives the following account 
(p. 94) of his own confirmation : 

u It was at this time that the Bishop of Bristol held a Confirmation 
in the Collegiate Church. I had never been confirmed, and as I had 
a high respect for all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, I 
wished to embrace this opportunity to get the blessing of that amia- 
ble and Apostolic-looking Prelate, Dr. Lewis Bagot. I asked per- 
mission ; several of the Preacher's sons went with me, and 1 felt mnch 
satisfaction in this ordinance ; to me it was very solemn, and the 
whole was well conducted. Mrs. S., who was a Presbyterian, pitied 
my being " so long held in the oldness of the letter." I have lived 
nearly forty years since, and upon this point my sentiments are not 
changed" 



22 

records of antiquity, was made Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle St, 
Peter, A. D. 66 — over which he presided until A. D. 106 — when he 
suffered martyrdom under Trajan.* It was while on his way to 
Rome to lay down his life for Christ, that he wrote those charming 
Epistles which have been handed down to our times. And having 
occupied so conspicuous a position in the Church for forty years, 
during most of which time he was conversant with the Apostles, (hav- 
ing survived the last one, St. John, only four years,) his testimony 
is of the greatest importance. Now let us examine the quotations 
from his writings which Mr. A. has furnished his readers. It is this : 
" Presbyters (Elders) preside in the place of the Council of the Apos- 
tles. Be ye subject to your Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus 
Christ, our hope. Let all reverence the Presbyters (Eiders) as the 
Sanhedrim of God, and College of Apostles." As usual, Mr. A. 
has given no reference. But after some some search I succeeded in 
finding the words quoted, in Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians. And 
I am sorry to have to state, that the passage is most shamefully gar- 
bled. Mr. A. has here evinced either the most inexcusable ignorance, 
or the most culpable unfairness. The passage, with its context : , 
affords the most conclusive evidence in favor of Episcopacy, or, as 
Mr. A. calls it, Prelacy. That the reader may judge, I will quote 
the whole paragraph, precisely as it stands in the Epistle. Ignatius 
says to the Trallians : '* For in that you are subject to your Bishops 
as to Jesus Christ, you seem to me to be living not after the way of 
men, but according to Jesus Christ: who died for your sakes, that 
by believing in His death, ye may from death escape. It is there- 
fore your bounden duty, as it also is your practice, to do nothing 
apart from the Bishrp. Be subject, moreover, to the Presbyters, 
as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope ; may we be found to 
have had our conversation in Him. It is requisite, too, that they who 
are Deacons (Ministers) of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should be 
obliging to all men in every manner ; for they are not Ministers 
(Deacons) of meat and drink, but servants of God's Church: they 
must therefore guard against reproach, as against fire. Likewise let 
all men give heed to the Deacons, as to an institution of Jesus 
Christ ; and to the Bishops, as to the image of God : and to the 
Presbyters as to the Sanhedrim of God and the College of Apostles. 
Without these there is no Church." (Epis. to TralL)f Let the 
reader compare this with Mr. A.'s extract, and he will perceive that 
sentences, picked out here and there, have been combined together, 
while those enjoining submission to the Bishops are omitted J It is 
surely a desperate case when such means are resorted to. This pas- 
sage not only proves that in the days of Ignatius (who was cotempo- 

* It is said that Ignatius was one of the little children that our 
Saviour took in his arms and blessed. 

1 1 have two editions of this Epistle, and they agree exactly in the 
above quotation. 



23 

rary with the Apostles,) there were three distinct orders in the Minis- 
try, but also sustains our position, that although in the New Testa- 
ment the terms Bishop and Presbyter are applied to the same order, 
that a distinction was made about the close of the Apostolic Age — by 
which the term Bishop ceased to be applied to Presbyters, and was 
appropriated exclusively to a superior order of men, who inherited 
the ordaining and governing authority of the Apostles. For when 
Ignatius exhorted the Trallians to obey their Bishop, and afterwards 
exhorts them to obey their Presbyters, it is obvious that the terms 
were then no longer synonymous, but represented two distinct orders. 
After testimony so clear and positive in favor of a three-fold Ministry, 
it seems almost superfluous to furnish more from Ignatius. But I 
cannot forbear to add a few more extracts from this Martyred witness 
of Apostolic Order. 

To the Magnesians he says : " Seeing now it is my privilege to 
behold you, through Damus, your most holy Bishop, and your wor- 
thy Presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and your Deacon, my fellow- 
laborer, Sotion, toward whom I am tenderly afTectioned, because he 
is subject to his Bishop as to a gracious gift from God, and to 
the Presbyters as to an institution of Jesus Christ, I determined to 
write unto you. Your duty likewise is it, not to bear yourself toward 
your Bishop with a freedom proportioned to his youth, but according 
to the power of God the Father, to concede to him all homage, as I am 
aware the holy Presenters do." (Epis. to Magnes.) Once more : 
warning them against Heretics, he says : "From such men keep your- 
selves guarded And guarded ye will be, if ye are not puffed up, nor 
separated from Jesus Christ our Lord, and from the Bishop, and 
from the rules laid down by the Apostles. He that is within the altar 
is pure : he that is without, whoever, viz : acts independent of the 
Bishop, the Presbyters and the Deacons, is a man of unclean 
conscience." (Epis. to Trail.) Again : "For there is but one flesh 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood ; 
one altar ; as also there is one Bishop,* togethkk with his 
Presbytery, and the Deacons, my fellow Servants : that so, 
whatsoever ye may do, ye may do it according to the will of God.'' 
;4 Now if ye be willing, it is not impossible for you to do this for the 
sake of God ; as also the other neighboring Churches have sent 
them, some Bishops, some Priests, and Deacons." (Epist. Philad.} 

I pass on to the last Father that Mr. A. quotes — Polycarp, from 
whose writings he gives this extract : " Polycarp,, and Presbyters 
that are with him, to the Church of God, which is at Phillippi." 
" Be subject to the Presbyters (Elders) and Deacons, as unto God 
and Christ." The first sentence I find in Polycarp's Epistle to the 
Phillippians ; but like the other quotation of Mr, A, instead of oppos- 
ing Prelacy, sustains it. Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius, 
Jne father before quoted, wrote him an Epistle, (which is now before 
me,) commencing with these words : '• Ignatius, who is also called 

^Anciently, as now, there was generally but one Bishop in a Diocese . 



24 

Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Smyrn^eans." He also 
wrote an Epistle to the SmyrnaBans, in which I find this passage : 
" See that ye all follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father ; 
and the Presbyters as the Apostles. And reverence the Deacons as 
the command of God. Let no man do anything of what belongs to 
the Church, separately from the Bishops." Thus it is evident that 
Polycarp was Bishop of the Smyrnpeans, and of a distinct and supe- 
rior Order — although he associates his Presbyters with himself in ad- 
dressing the Phillippians. In acts 15: 23, we find Apostles and 
Elders and Brethren coupled together in a similar manner. 

The other passage which Mr. A. quotes from Polycarp, can 
prove nothing to his purpose. Polycarp writes an Epistle to the 
Phillippians, in which he mentions only Presbyters and Deacons, 
therefore Mr. A. infers, not only that there was no Bishop over 

THEM, BUT NO BlSHOP IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD. Is this SOUnd 

logic ? Since Polycarp mentions no Bishop, I admit that it is there- 
fore probable that there was no Bishop at Phillippi at the time 
he wrote. This is all that can be reasonably inferred. In the State 
of Indiana, and some others, we have a number of Presbyters and 
Deacons, but no Bishop. Now suppose one of our Bishops were 
to write an Epistle to the members of the Church in Indiana, contain- 
ing this passage : " Be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons, as 
unto God and Christ ;" but making of course no mention of a Bishop, 
how delusive would be the inference, that there are no Bishops at 
all in the Church. Besides, we have already proved from the 
testimony of Ignatius, that at 'Smyrna there were not only Deacons 
and Presbyters, but also a Bishop at their head — this very same 
Polycarp, that Mr. A. quotes to prove that in his days there were but 
two Orders in the Church ! 

We have now reviewed the quotations which Mr. A. has made from 
the Fathers. He tells us that similar quotations might be made 
from Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian and Clemens Alexandrinus." 
Perhaps they might, but certainly my readers will agree that "similar 
quotations" would avail but little. But since he has not favored us 
with any passages from their writings, of course, it is not necessary 
for me to examine their testimony — however, I will set before the 
reader the testimony of at least two of them. Tertullian, who was 
only a Presbyter, and, therefore, could have had no wish to magnify 
the powers of the Bishop, says — u The right of administering this 
ordinance, (Baptism) belongs to the Chief Priest, which is the 
Bishop, next to him, the Presbyters, and the Deacons have the 
right to administer it, but not without the Bishop's authority, 
in regard to the honor of the Church, which being kept inviolate, 
peace is safe." (Tertul. de Baptism, § 17, Ed. Paris, A. D. 1695, 
p. 230.) From this passage, we learn these things : First, since 
Tertullian calls the Bishop the Chief Priest, that the analogy between 
the Jewish Priesthood and the Christian Priesthood was understood 
in the first century. Second, that not only Presbyters, but the 
Deacons also, Baptised. Thirdly, that neither Presbyters nor 



25 

Deacons could Baptise, except by virtue of authority derived 
from the Bishop in ordination. Again, writing against the heretics 
of his day, he says: "But if they dare to insert themselves into the 
Apostolic Age, in order that they may appear to have been handed 
down from the Apostles, inasmuch as they subsisted in their time, we 
may say: let them show the originals of their Churches: 
let them unroll the list of their Bishops descending by 
succession from the beginning, and prove that their first Bishop 
had his author and predecessor, either among the Apostles, or from 
those Apostolic men who labored with the Apostles. For in this 
manner, the Apostolic Churches prove their authority. Thus 
the Church of the Smyrnaeans declare thatPolycarp was placed there 
by John, (Tertul. de' Paerscript. Haeretic. §31, §32, ib. p. 213.) 
What does Mr. A. say to this test ? I presume he would rather 
resort to his plausible but fallacious argument of "success." 

Now let us hear Clemens Alexandrinus, who was born about the 
time of the death of the Apostle John. Having mentioned some of 
the rules of conduct contained in Scripture, he says: "There are 
other precepts without number which concern men, in particular 
capacities : some which relate to Presbyters ; others which belong 
to Bishops ; others respecting Deacons." (Peddag, Lib. 3, c. 12.) 
Such was the opinion of one who had conversed with those who 
had conversed with the Apostles, respecting the contents of Holy 
Scripture. Yet Mr. A., seventeen centuries afterwards, writes, "Her 
Great Head has laid down no special form of Church Government." 
(p. 20.) This remark casts such dishonor upon God, that I shudder 
to notice it. God, the Head and Founder of the Church, and yet 
has left it without any special form of Government ! ! Has short 
sighted man ever founded a community or society without a form 
of government? But I am anticipating. Another passage from 
Clemens. He says: "In the Church, the orders of Bishops, Pres- 
byters, and Deacons, are, I think, imitations of the angelic glory." 
(Strom. Lib. 6.) And now I will summon from among the ancient 
worthies too or three, not mentioned by Mr, A. Origen, Catechist 
of the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, A. D., 230, says : "Shall I 
not be subject to my Bishop, who is ordained of God to be my 
Father? Shall I not be subject to the Presbyter, who by the Divine 
condescension, is placed over me?" — (20th Homily on St. Mathew.) 
Cypriun, Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 250,) says, "This, brother, is 
and ought to be, our principal labor and study, to the utmost of our 
power, to take care that the unity may still obtain which was de- 
livered by our Lord and by his Apostles to us their successors." 
(Epistle to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome.) In another place he says, 
4; From thence, through the course of times and successions, the 
ordination of Bishops, and the frame of the Church, is transmitted, 
so that the Church is built upon the Bishops, and all her affairs are 
ordered by the Chief Rulers; and, therefore, seeing this is God's 
appointment, I must needs wonder at the audacious daring of some 
who have chosen to write to me as if in the name of a Church, 



26 

whereas a Church is only constituted in the Bishop, Clergy, and 
faithful Christians." — (Epistle to the Lapsed.) But I will not lire 
my reader's patience by giving additional testimony, being wiling 
that he should now judge whether Mr. A. is correct in stating that 
we have 



CHAPTER III. 

PowelVs Argument Examined — Wesley's Ordination of Coke — 
Coke's Efforts to obtain Consecration — Methodist Organi- 
zation — Church Government Instituted in Scripture — Some 
Passages of Wesley's and Coke's Letters Reviewed — Schism 
Forbidden in Scripture — 7 he Secession of the Methodists 
Unjustifiable — Divisions, and other Evil Fruits of Methodism. 

The argument which Mr. A. borrows from Powell, may influence 
those who already think with him, and even perplex some who do 
not — but a little reflection will enable the candid mind to see that it 
is a fallacy. This is the argument : — "The two Sacraments of Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper, are the greatest Ritual Ordinances in the 
Church. Ordination is not a Sacrament; it is therefore less than a 
Sacrament ; and Presbyters have authority to administer the Sacra- 
ments ; therefore, they have power to confer Orders." First, then, 
I remark, that this argument must be a sophism — for if it be sound, 
it proves too much — which is shown in this way. Baptism is 
greater than Ordination ; therefore, he who has authority to Baptise, 
has authority to confer Ordination. Deacons have authority to 
Baptise; therefore, Deacons have authority to confer Ordination. 
Now, this last conclusion, is contrary not only to the principles of 
the Church — but also to the principles of Methodism and Presby- 
terianism. Mr. A., .as well as we, denies that a Deacon has the 
right to ordain, though it is evident that he has, according to the 
premises contained in the argument above stated. But inasmuch as 
he has not this authority, the conclusion being false, the premises 
from which it is logically deduced, must be false also. And since 
the premises are manifestly false, the conclusion which Mr. Powell 
and Mr. A. draw, viz. that Presbyters have the right to Ordain, is 
false too. 

This is a sufficient refutation — but 1 will add the great question 
is, whether Presbyters have the authority to Ordain : i. e. the 
authority to commission other men to ordain and administer the 
Sacraments. And whether a Sacrament be greater than Ordination, 
i. e., the act of Ordination is irrelevant. The authority to commission 
others, both to Ordain and to administer the Sacraments, is obviously 
greater than the authority to administer only the Sacraments, Be- 
sides, a Presbyter, as an officer of the Church, can possess no authority 
but what the Church has given him, and if the Church has never 
given him the ordaining commission, he cannot exercise it, even if it 



27 

be less than the act which he is empowered to perform. A Judge 
can preside in a Court of Justice, and give sentence according to the 
prescribed regulations ; but he cannot commission another man to do 
so, neither can he perform the far inferior functions of a Constable. 
Yet it is by such reasoning that Mr. A. maintains that Mr, Wesley- 
had authority to ordain others ! Reasoning that proves (if it proves 
any thing) that even Deacons can ordain ! Such is the reasoning by 
which Mr. A. proves himself in the succession ! But he not only 
claims for Mr. Wesley this authority upon such false reasoning — but 
-also makes Mr. W. exercise it in the must absurd way imaginable. 
He says that Wesley "did ordain Dr. Coke!" (p. 13.^ Now 
since both of these men were Presbyters of the Church — one 
Presbyter ordains another Presbyter ! According to Mr. A., Wesley 
had authority to ordain, because he was a Presbyter : if so, Coke 
being a Presbyter, possessed the same authority — and therefore, had 
as much right to ordain Wesley as Wesley had to ordain him. Mr. 
A. maintains that a Presbyter has as much authority as a Bishop, 
indeed that they are one and the same. This is true or false. If 
true, then Coke needed no further ordination. If false, Wesley could 
notconfer it. By the former, Coke's pretended ordination by Wesley 
would be sacrilege : by the latter a nullity. Mr. A. says (p. 13) 
"From him (Dr. Coke,) all Methodist Ministers have received their 
ordinations, and with it, they are perfectly satisfied. Nor would 
they give a fig to have the authority of their orders heightened by the 
imposition of the hands of the Primate of England." But it seems 
Dr. Coke (who ought to have understood the matter) thought dif- 
ferently. In 1784, Mr. Wesley "appointed him a Superintendent," 
over the Methodists in this country. After he had been here a short 
time, he assumed the title of Bishop, for which Mr. Wesley in 1788 
most severly rebukes him. In April, 1791, he writes to Bishop 
White, proposing to return to the bosom of the Church, and stating 
that, "the generality of the Methodist Preachers, perhaps none of 
them, would refuse to submit to a re-ordination;" though this, of 
course, could not be done without acknowledging the nullity of the 
Ordination which Dr. Coke had given them. Again: a little later 
he writes to Bishop Seabury, proposing the return of the Methodists 
to the Church, and stating, "Iwcll know that they {the Preachers,) 
must submit to a re-ordination" — "the magnitude of the object 
ivould justify considerable sacrifices" — and suggesting that he and 
Mr. Asbury should be consecrated Bishops — although they had 
been claiming the authority of Bishops several years. Once more : 
Dr. Coke v. as so fully convinced that he was no Bishop, and so 
anxious to be made one, that in 1813 he writes to Wilberforce, 
promising to "return, most fully and faithfully into the bosom of the 
established Church," if they would make him Bishop of India ! 
Thus, whai Mr. A. is satisfied with — the man to whom he traces it, 
was so diss i isfied with, that he requests, humiliating as it must have 
been, at three distinct times, and of three different persons, Episco- 
pal Ordination! What Mr. A. would not "give a fig for," his 



28 

"First Bishop" repeatedly and most humbly begged and esteemed 
worthy of "considerable sacrifices." If a Churchman now dares to. 
intimate that Methodist Orders are invalid, it is termed "slander," 
bigotry" and "persecution." Although the man ivho conferred 
them, again and again acknowledged their insufficiency. 

Mr. A's tirade against Bishops, and expressions in favor of minis- 
terial parity would lead one to suppose that there is but one Order or 
rank of Ministers in the Methodist organization ; whereas, in this 
particular, it resembles the Church as nearly as the shadow can, 
resemble the substance: it is nominally Episcopal In the Methodist 
Book of Discipline, the reader will find three different offices or 
forms — the first for ordaining Deacons — the second for ordaining 
Presbyters, and the third for ordaining Bishops — all copied (with 
a few slight omissions) verbatim et literatim, from our Prayer 
Book. Among the Methodists, as in the Church, a man caunot 
baptise until he has been ordained a Deacon — he cannot administer 
the Lord's Supper alone, until he has been ordained a Presbyter, and 
he cannot administer ordination (unless all the Bishops fail) until he 
has been ordained Bishop. Is this ministerial parity 1 Is this con- 
sistent with their theory, that Presbyter and Bishop are the same 
in rank and authority ? If a Presbyter is a Bishop, as Mr. Wesley 
professed to have been convinced, and as Mr. A. contends — why do 
the Methodists ordain a Presbyter, again, before he can receive the 
title, and perform the functions of a Bishop 1 Is not this absurd? 
Thus the principle and theory upon which they forsook the Churchy, 
though stiH professed, is practically abandoned. If Mr. A. were to 
act as Mr. Wesley is said to have done, undertake to confer ordina- 
tion, he would be "expelled from the connection." And yet, if a 
Churchman calls in question the propriety of Wesley's act, he is 
accused of " exclusiveness, intolerance," &c. If Mr. Wesley 
did ordain Dr. Coke, how is such an act to be reconciled with Mr, 
Wesley's obligation to the Church ? Before God's Holy Altar, he 
had solemnly promised to obey the Bishops, and to conform to the 
regulations and principles of the English Church. According to these 
principles and regulations, only the Bishops were authorized to 
admit men to the Ministry, and yet while a Clergyman of the 
Church, and therefore bound to submit to its regulations — he per- 
forms an act which was in its nature and tendency subversive of order 
and government, and also a direct violation of his ordination vows. 
Mr. Wesley was of course at liberty to separate from the Church, 
bat ivhile he remained in it^ he was morally bound to acquiesce in 
its established arrangements, supposing that they were merely 
human, and especially in one of so much moment as this. No 
society, religious or civil, could exist, if its members were permitted 
to perform whatever functions they might choose. 

I know the reverential regard which our Methodist brethren enter- 
tain for the memory of Wesley, and I am sorry to make remarks 
which may give them pain. But let them impartially consider the 
relation and obligations of Wesley to the Church, and surely they 



29 

•cannot but adrr.it, either, that Wesley did not undertake to ordain 
and to organize a distinct sect, or that his conduct was utterly un- 
justifiable. As long as they are Methodists, they feel bound, Preachers 
and People, to conform to the regulations of their Discipline. And 
was not Wesley, as long as he continued in the Church, (which he 
did to the day of his death) equally bound to conform to its 
regulations? 

Let Mr. Wesley's relation to the Church be candidly considered, 
and the view taken by "Tract No. 4" that he did not intend to 
ordain, whether correct or not, must appear charitable at least. 

I have mentioned that the Methodists have nominal Episcopacy — 
the only "plea" that they make for it, however, is "expediency," 
says xMr. A. Episcopacy then is expedient, i. e., the best adapted 
to the nature and design of the Church. But does not that very faci 
render it probable that it is the Divinely Appointed mode of Ecclesi- 
astical Organization ? Since the Divine Wisdom is perfect — the plan 
which is best, would certainly have been instituted. And that 
some plan was instituted, is admitted by nearly all Christians.* 
Mr. A. denies this in one part of his pamphlet, but he certainly 
contradicts himself, as in another part he endeavours to prove that 
his theory is contained in the Scriptures. It is surprising to me, 
that any one with the New Testament before him, should assert that 
God has instituted "no special form of Church Government." Let 
the reader first remember how often the Gospel system is called a 
kingdom, both in the Old and New Testament. And can there be 
a kingdom without a "Form of Government?" Let him then 
consider the commission which the Saviour gave to his Apostles, 
"As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." "I appoint 
unto you a kingdom as my Father appointed unto me." "Whatsoever 
ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven." Does not this 
imply a "Form of Government?" Again, "Upon this rock I will 
build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
Could a Church be built without a "Form of Government?" Let 
him further consider the many passages in the Book of Acts, and in 

*"The visible Church, which is also Catholic or Universal under 
the Gospel * * * * is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary 
possibility of salvation." Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 
25, sec. 2. 

"Jesus Christ, who is now exalted far above all, principality and 
power, hath erected in this world a Kingdom which is his Church." 
Presbyterian Form of Gov., chap. 1, sec. 1. 

In a report to the late General Assembly, by a Committee of 
which the Rev. Robt. J. Breckenridge, D. D., was Chairman, they 
say of the famous Westminister Assembly of Divines, that with all 
the differences in that body on other subjects, "they were entirely of 
one mind in asserting Church Government to be jure divino." 

See also the Dutch Reformed Formularies. 



30 

the Epistles which relate to ordination and to the administration of 
discipline — all of which imply a Form of Government. Surely no 
one will deny that there was a Church in the days of the Apostles,, 
instituted by the Saviour, either in person or by the agency of the 
Apostles. But it is obvious that a Church could not riave existed, 
any more than any other association or society, without a Form of 
Government. If then, there was a Church, it must have had a Form 
of Government, coeval with it. And since the Church was founded 
by the Saviour through his Apostles, i.e., by "Divine Right" or 
authority — the form of government, which was necessarily a part of 
it, must be by "Divine Right'* also. But has not Mr. A. contradicted 
his own standards also T In the "form" of ordaining Deacons, con- 
tained in the Methodist Discipline, there is a prayer containing these 
words: " Almighty God, who by thy Divine Providence hast 
appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, and didst 
inspire thy Jlpostles to choose into the Order of Deacons, thy first 
Martyr St. Stephen, with others." Here then, is a recognition of 
the Divine institution of the Christian Ministry, by the Methodist 
Discipline; which Mr. A. has denied, by asserting that God "has 
laid down no special form of Church Government" — for in the 
phrase, "Church Government' 9 — he must of course refer chiefly, if 
not exclusively to the Ministry, otherwise his remark is irrelevant — 
that being the great matter in dispute. Let the reader note in this 
quotation from the Discipline, the phrase, "divers orders" — which 
implies that this Divine Ministry embraces various Orders by Divine 
arrangement. The word "divers" cannot mean less than two. 
Consequently, the doctrine of the Discipline is,that God has instituted 
at least two Orders of Ministers — which is inconsistent with "Minis- 
terial parity" also. Thus it seems, the Discipline claims "Divine 
Right" for two Orders — notwithstanding Mr. A. asserts that to this 
claim can be "traced every drop of Protestant blood which has been 
shed from the first!" (p. 23 .) 

The Discipline being judge, then, God has instituted a Ministry in 
the Church. And according to the principle before mentioned, if an 
Episcopal Ministry be expedient (as Mr. A. concedes) i. e., the best r 
the Ministry which God instituted, must have been Episcopal, for 
of course God must have instituted the best. 

But further, Mr. A. has also contradicted Mr. Wesley, although 
Wesley's writings are acknowledged to be the authoritative exposi- 
tions of the Methodist creed.* The Prayer Book asserts, that 
"from the apostles 1 times" there have been these Orders of men in 

* We find the following in the Christian Advocate (Methodist 
Organ) of Feb. 8th, 1843. "The Bible is the supreme authority in 
matter and manner for a Methodist Minister, Next to it, are the 
articles of Faith of our Church, and Mr. Wesley's Notes, and four 
volumes of Sermons.' 1 Let the reader compare the Discipline with 
the Prayer Book and he will find that these "Articles of Faith" are 
likewise borrowed from the latter, almost word for word. 



31 

Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons." And to this 
doctrine Mr. Wesley subscribed, ex animo. And as a Clergymen of 
the Church, he professed it to the day of his death. And he not only 
professed it — but taught it In his sermon on the "Catholic Spirit," 
he says : U I believe the Episcopal form of Church Government to be 
Scriptural and Apostolical" 

Thus it is proved that Mr. Wesley believed that God has appointed 
a form of Church Government, and further, that that form is the Epis- 
copal one. Consequently, Mr. A. has contradicted Wesley, and 
Wesley maintained, as well as we, the " Divine Right" of Episcopacy, 
so that all Mr. A's harsh epithets and uncharitable insinuations of 
"arrogance" "intolerance," &c. apply to the "shade of Mr. Wesley" 
too. But perhaps he will say, that Mr. Wesley thought differently 
later in life. Why then did he continue in a Church which held 
that Episcopacy, (consisting of three distinct Orders) was Scriptual? 
And how could he consistently use this language, "I declare once 
more that I live and die a member of the Church of England; and 
that none who regard my judgment or advice, will ever separate 
from it" which he published in the "Arminian Magazine" for 
April, 1790, only a few months before his death. Again,his letter to Mr. 
Asbury (see p. 4,j evidently implies, that if his faith in the "Divine 
Ri^ht of Bishops" failed at the moment of his alleged Ordination of 
Coke, it had returned in full vigor —for he writes thus : "One instance 
of this your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, 
how dare you, suffer yourself to be called a Bishop?" "For my 
sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this" 
Here it will be said that Mr. Wesley objected only to the name of 
Bishop. But this is utterly improbable. It is not to be supposed 
that a mere name would have called forth such a solemn and earnest 
protest. Besides, if Wesley was still of the opinion that "Bishops 
and Presbyters were the same order," as he had stated in the 
document authorizing Dr. Coke and Mr. Asburyto act as Superinten- 
dents — he certainly would not have rebuked him, for calling himself 
what he really was, according to Mr. Wesley's own admissions. 
The only ground upon which Mr. Wesley could have reproved 
Asbury with so much severity was, that he did not possess the rank 
and authority of a Bishop. While at the same time I admit that 
lhat ground is inconsistent with Mr. Wesley's profession, that he had 
been convinced by King's book- that Bishops and Presbyters were 
one order, but this profession also is inconsistent with his position as 
-a Clergyman of the Church, and with his views, as set forth in 
his sermons and addresses, both before and after the alleged 
Ordination. 



• This work was written by Sir Peter King, when about 22 years 
of age! Mr. Slater wrote a reply to it, which was so complete a 
refutation of its errors as to convince Sir Peter himself. And when 
he became Lord Chancellor, he presented Mr. Slater a very desirable 
benefice. 



32 

I know of but one way to harmonize all these conflicting docu- 
ments, professions, actions, &c, which is by supposing that Wesley 
hastily yielded to the solicitations of Coke and others, in opposition 
to his deliberate convictions. Here let the reader turn back to Dr. 
Coke's letter to Wesley, (p. 5,) and Coke's letter to Bishop White, 
in which he thus remarks: — "He (Wesley) being pressed by our 
friends on this side of the water for Ministers to administer the 
Sacraments, * * * * went further, I a?n sure, than he would 
have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. And 

THIS I AM CERTAIN OF THAT HE IS NOW SORRY FOR THE SEPARA- 
TION." And in this letter Dr. Coke also asserts that Wesley "did not 
intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place." Surely 
Dr. Coke must have understood Mr. Wesley's intention. And he 
tells us that Wesley "did not intend an entire separation should take 
place." And yet Mr. A. accuses the author of "Tract No. 4," of 
"false-witness" and "slander," for having maintained the same 
opinion ! 

The reader has now seen that Mr. Wesley believed and taught the 
Scripturalness of Episcopacy — that his dying advice* to the Metho- 
dists was that they should never leave the Church — that (Dr. Coke 
being witness) he did not intend an "entire separation" — that he 
"went further then he would have gone, if he had forseen some 
events which followed" — that he was afterward " sorry for the 
separation," and that Dr. Coke likewise repented of the proceedure, 
and repeatedly sought re-ordination for himself, and for those whom 
he had undertaken to ordain. 

The question may now be asked why did they separate — or rather, 
why do the Methodists of the present day persist in the separation? 
Is there no sin in schism ? Did notour Lord repeatedly pray (John 
17th ch.) that his Disciples might be one, as a proof of his Divine 
Mission ? Says St. Paul to the Romans, (chap. 16, v. 17, 18,) " Now 
I beseech you brethern, mark them which cause divisions and offen- 
ces contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them. 
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their 
own belly ; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of 
the simple." Again, with similar earnestness — "Now 1 beseech you, 
brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the 
same thing, and that there be no divisions among you." (1 Cor. ch. 
1, v. 10,) "For whereas, there is among you envying, strife and 
divisions ; are ye not carnal and walk as men? For while one saith 
I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" 
(1 Cor. ch. 2, v. 4.) In making these quotations, I do not wish 
to insinuate that the Methodists in separating from the Church, were 
actuated by bad motives — on the contrary, I believe they were sincere 
and upright in their designs — but only to show that the word of 
God forbid divisions. Upon this point, a late number of the 

*This advice has within the last few years been disregared by the 
Methodists in England, too. 



3d 

Methodist Christian Advocate, takes the true Scriptural ground. 
The "Senior editor," (remonstrating with those who have recently- 
withdrawn from the Methodist Society, and formed another sect, 
says : " Such an act (separation) is always either a duty or a sin. It 
is a duty when we are required to believe what we think to be untrue, 
or to do what we believe to be sin, as a condition of membership; 
and it is a sin to do so, for any lighter reason "* Did the Church 
require such a "condition of membership ?" Wesley is the witness 
that it did not. And here, we might easily furnish many proofs 
from his writings, but the one solemn declaration already given is 
sufficient : "I declare once more that I live and die a member of 
the Church of England ; and that none who regard my judgment 
or advice will eve>" separate from it" Fletcher, who is also high 
authority with our Methodist brethren, is another witness — for he, 
too, lived and died in the Church. Wesley was a Clergyman of 
the Church for more than half a century, and died in its bosom; 
beseeching his followers never to forsake it. Therefore, there 
could have been no such "condition of membership" in his day. 
And there have been no other terms of communion imposed by the 
Church since ; they are precisely the same now, as when Wesley 
published the above declaration. According, then, to the principle 
laid down by the editor of the Methodist Advocate, and the testimony 
and conduct of Wesley, there was no cause sufficient to justify a 
separation. And if so, is it right to persist in that separation ? Is 
it not an utter disregard of the dying wishes of Wesley — and of the 
solemn prohibitions of the Bible ? I freely admit that Methodtism 
has done much good. But did it not do as much good when con- 
nected with the Church ? Might it not have done much more if they 
had continued with us ?t Until they prove the contrary (which is 
impossible,) I see not how they can be satisfied with this mode of 
reasoning, admitting it to be legitimate. Wesley always considered it 
the " peculiar glory" of Methodism, that it produced no schism, as 
other systems had done. "This is a new thing in the world," says 
he : "this is the peculiar glory of the people called Methodists. In 
spite of all manner of temptations, they will not separate from the 
Church. What many, so earnestly covet, they abhor: they will 
not be a distinct body.' (Vol. 7, p, 320, 21.) 

* Wesley takes the same ground in opposition to those who 
wished to leave the Church — See his Sermon "On Schism." 

tAt the time of Wesley's death, the Methodists in the British 
Dominions, (who were still in the Church) amounted to 76,968 — 
whereas, in the United States, at the same p9riod, and after they had 
been separated from the Church seven years, there were but 57,621. 
Southey's Life of Wesley, (vol. 2, p. 409.) Since Wesley's death, 
the Methodists of England have also separated from the Church — 
and a year or two ago the annual report showed a decrease of more 
than 2000. 

Again — says he, " When the great Reformation began, what moun 
3* 



34 

tainous offences lay in the way of even the sincere members of the 
Church of Rome ! They saw such failings in those great men, 
Luther and Calvin. The grand stumbling block of all was their 
open, avowed separation from the Church." 

" The same occasion (in England) of offence was given by the 
Presbyterians and Independents ; for they also spent great part of 
their time and strength concerning the circumstantials of religion ; 
and, for the sake of these, separated from the Church. 

" How wide then is the difference between our case and the case 
of any of those that are above mentioned ! They avowedly separated 
from the Church: we utterly disavow any such design. They 
severally, and almost continually, inveighed against the Doctrines 
and Discipline of the Church they left; we approve both the 
Doctrine and Discipline of our Church. (He "speaks to a member 
of the Church of England.) They spent a great part of their time and 
strength in contending about externals and circumstantials: we agree 
with you in both. We were born and bred up in your own Church, 
and desire to die therein." — Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and 
Religion, part 3,v, 5 p. 171." 

But alas ! Their "peculiar glory" has departed. They have long 
ago deserted the mother that gave them birth ! And has not the 
result proved the truth of Wesley's declarations? Among other reasons 
which he assigned against separating from the Church are these: 
"God has, since the Reformation, raised up from time to time, many 
witnesses of pure Religion. But if, upon any provocation or consi- 
deration whatever, they separated, and founded distinct parties, their 
influence was more and more confined: they grew less and less 
useful to others, and generally lost the spirit of religion themselves, 
in the spirit of controversy. Because, we have many instances of 
this, even now before our eyes. Many have, in our memory, left the 
Church, and formed themselves into distinct bodies. And certainly 
some of them, from a real persuasion that they should do God more 
service. But have any separated themselves and prospered ? Have 
they been either more holy, or more useful than they were before ?" 
I know that the Methodists have increased in numbers. But have 
not "divisions" increased in proportion? An English author states 
that in England, "the Methodists are subdivided into an immense 
variety of sects — the chief are Wesleyans, Whitfieldians, Ranters, 
Brianites, Protestant Methodists, Tent Methodists, Independent 
Methodists and Kilhamites," Here, then, are named eight principal 
divisions : how many subdivisions make up the "immense variety," 
I know not.* In this country, Methodism is much younger — but 
here too, division has followed multiplication at a fearful rate. 

After Mr. Asbury had succeeded in healing the first schism by 
persuading the preachers to renounce their pretended power to 

* According to the statistics of last year, or the year before, Wes- 
leyanism in England, was on the wane. " The Watchman," its 
organ, stated, " that in the Home Stations, the decrease this year, 
has been 2065." Another English paper states, "during the last 



35 

administer the Sacraments, and wait until they had received Presby- 
terian Ordination through Mr. Wesley, the first troublesome spirit 
who arose was Mr. William Hammett, of Charleston, S. C,, who 
in 1785, became the founder of a separate sect called a Primitive 
Methodists." In 1792, Mr. James O'Kelly, of Virginia, started 
another, with greater prospects of success, called " Republican 
Methodists" Next came Mr. Pliney Brett, of Massachusetts, who 
in 1813, became the leader of the "Reformed Methodists." In 
1827, commenced another offshoot, denominated the "Methodist 
Protestants" headed by Messrs. McCaine, Jennings, Shinn, and 
others; which appears to be increasing, Lastly, in 1842, Messrs. 
Sutherland, Scott and Co., laid the foundation of a new body called 
" Wesley an Methodists" which held a Convention recently at 
Utica, N. Y., attended by about one hundred Preachers, and one 
hundred and seventy-five lay delegates from ten States. With this 
body, it is said that from six to eight hundred members, with one 
hundred and fifty Preachers, have united, having seceded from the 
Old Methodists. And according to a late number of the Christian 
Advocate, a great disturbance was caused among the Preachers at a 
recent Conference in New England, upon the absurd dream of 
Millerism. A number of the Preachers maintained, not only that 
Miller's theory is in the Bible, but worse still — that God had ac- 
tually revealed it to them by direct inspiration. Judging of the 
future by the past, and by present indications, I cannot doubt that the 
whole 'connection' will ere long split into numberless fragments. In- 
deed, the Methodists themselves are looking to the future withdeadful 
apprehensions. A late number of the Richmond Christian Advocate, 
(Methodist paper) says : " In many respects, and for many reasons, 
the next General Conference will be the most important one, to 
the peace, unity, and prosperity of the Church, that has ever assem- 
bled. A variety of circumstances, long passing before our mind, and 
constantly impressing us, have united to work out this conviction. 
For months we have been silent spectators of scenes, and plans, 
and propositions, rife with the distruction of all that is excellent or 
valuable in our prized, and heretofore blessed Ecclesiastial Union. 
We write to forewarn our brethren, to show them the gathering of the 
elements, the coming on of the storm, before they are called to eon- 
template the disasters of its spent fury." 

year eight Methodists Preachers at Bolton, Lancashire, have been 
received into communion with the Church. A building in Bolton, 
late a Preaching-house of New Methodists, is now a Licensed Chapel, 
and Mr. Perry, the late Preacher, is now the Rev. Thomas Berry ; 
he, and nearly all his Congregation, having relinquished dissent 
His coadj or had previously determined to leave the connection and 
go to the University. Six Local Preachers, all the Trustees, who 
had been dissatisfied for some time, and the greater part of the 
Teachers and Scholars, are now united to the Church, under their 
former Teacher, now an Ordained Minister of Christ, and the 
building will hereafter be Consecrated, having been conveyed for 
nhat purpose." 



3& 



In England, before the death of Wesley, the good fruits of Me- 
thodism were marred by much evil. Wesley himself furnishes* 
testimony in this point. Speaking of Methodistism, he says : "It 
brought forth error in ten thousand shapes,, turning many of the 
simple out of the way. It brought forth enthusiasm, imagi- 
nary inspiration, ascribing to the all-wise God all the wild, 
absurd, self-inconsistent dreams of an heated imagination. It 
brought forth pride, robbing the Giver of every good gift of the 
honor due to His name.. It brought forth prejudice, evil-surmising, 
censoriousness, judging and condemning one another; all totally 
subversive of that brotherly love which is the very badge of the 
Christian profession ; without which whosoever liveth is counted, 
dead before God. It brought forth anger, hatred, malice, revenge, and 
every evil word and wo* ; all direful fruits, not of the Holy Spirit,, 
but of the bottomless pit:'— Wesley's Sermons, Vol, VL, p. 66. See 
also Bishop Mant's Bampton Lectures, p. 310, 311. Sixth edition. ' 
(Southey's Life of Wesley, Vol. 2, p. 383.) Here I repeat,, that I 
have nx> wish to wound the feelings of our Methodist brethren. From 
the moment they separated from the Church to the present time, the 
propriety and expediency of the separation have been legitimate and 
important subjects of discussion. Mr. A. and others may attempt 
to smother such discussion by terming it the "mad cry of persecu- 
tion," but in vain. The only weapons which Churchmen wield or 
wish to wield are Light and truth. And these they will never cease 
to wield. We well know that there are thousands among the 
Methodists who only require a little more information upon this- 
point to lead them to return to the fold from which they have un- 
consciously strayed. It is for their benefit, and from Christian love, 
that we endeavour to diffuse through every community the knowledge 
which is so much needed. So far from being enemies to the 
Methodists (as Mr. A. very unfairly represents us,) we are their 
friends— we seek to do them good— we seek to bring them back to 
the good "old path" in which Wesley, Whitfield and Fletcher 
walked. When we consider the numberless divisions, and other 
" direful evils" which have resulted from the first separation, we 
cannot but question its propriety— because, (if there were no other 
reason,) there are no good results to counterbalance these evrls— for 
the good which has been done, would have been done (and probably 
much more) without separatton. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Testimony of English Divines Examined— They held the "Divine 

Eight" of Episcopacy— Their Opinions, whatever they were, are 

to be Judged by Scripture and Ancient Authors. 

I will now examine the testimony which Mr. A. claims* against 

Episcopacy from English Divines. He first gives us an extract from 

Wickliffe— though, as usual, without reference— which in substance,. 



17 

is only this, that In "the time of St. Paul, two Orders (a Priest and 
Deacon) were sufficient, and that, then, Bishop and Presbyter were 
names of the same office." The latter sentence is irrelevant — as it 
ds not disputed. The former is ambiguous. It may be fairly inter- 
preted, so as to harmonize with Episcopacy. Wickliffe probably 
means that two Orders besides the Apostles were at first sufficient. 
If so, then he is not against us — but if not, then he contradicts the 
New Testament — every reader of which must know that the Apostles, 
not only ordained those called Presbyters, but, also, exercised a 
-superintendence over them. He contradicts the Fathers who lived in 
the days of the Apostles and immediately after — and he contradicts 
his own Church. Wickliffe believed in purgatory, and many other 
things which are now rejected. But here let me remind the reader that 
the question is respecting the organization of the Church in the First 
Age, and therefore, it is to be decided by the New Testament, and 
the testimony of the Fathers, men who lived in the days of the 
Apostles, or soon after. Consequently that the opinions of modern 
writers possess no authority. Wickliffe did not live until the 
fourteenth century, and therefore, is not a competent witness. 

Mr. A. next gives an extract from Burnet's History of the Re- 
formation. That history embraces three large volumes, and yet Mr. 
A, has given (as usual) no reference } When a writer attempts to prove 
a position by authorities, surely he should direct his reader where to 
find his quotations. Otherwise, it amounts to no more than his 
own assertion. And he might as well content himself with a simple 
affirmation or denial of the proposition discussed. Of course. Mr. 
A would not intentionally misrepresent a writer, but every man 
is liable to make mistakes : besides, persons often meet with extracts 
at second hand, which they press into their service, supposing them 
to be accurate. Mr. A. asserts that Burnet gives an account of a 
convocation, "In which near forty of the principal Bishops, and 
Clergymen of England, on considering this very subject, declare 
that Bishops, and Presbyters or Elders, are the same office." " That 
their power, authority and commission under Christ, are equal. 
That they have equal power and authority to Ordain and con- 
secrate others in the same room, order and office, whereunto they be 
called and admitted themselves. " After a considerable research, I 
found the " account" referred to. But the statement of Mr. A. is 
essentially inaccurate. In the first place, these Divines were 
not engaged in "considering this very subject" — (whether there is 
an equality between Presbyter and Bishop) but the authority and 
duties of the Ministry in general. Burnet gives the whole of the 
document containing the declaration set forth by these Divines. It 
is aimed against the assumption of the power of the sword by the 
Pope, and the numerous inferior Orders, as sub-Deacon, Lecter, &c. 
I will here quote the first paragraph of this document entire : " As 
touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we will, that all Bishops 
and Preachers shall instruct, and teach our people, committed by us, 
unto their spiritual charge. — First, how, that Christ and his 



38 

Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testament : that besides 
the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes, which is 
called in Scripture potestas gladii, the power of the sword, ther« 
should be also continually in the Church militant, certain other 

MINISTERS OR OFFICERS, which should have SPIRITUAL POWER, AU- 
THORITY, and commission under Christ, to preach and teach the 
word of God unto his people, and to dispense and administer the 
Sacraments of God unto them, and by the same to confer and give 
the Grace of the Holy Ghost to consecrate the blessed body of Christ 
in the Sacrament of the Altar, to loose and absolve from sin, all per- 
sons which be truly penitent and sorry for the same ; to bind and 
excommunicate such as be guilty in manifest crimes and sins, and 
will not amend their defaults ; to order and consecrate others 
IN the same room, order and office whreeunto they be called 
and admitted themselves ; and finally, to feed Christ's people 
like Pastors and Rectors, as the Apostles calleth them, with their 
wholesome doctrine, and by their continual exhortations and moni- 
tions to redeem them from sin and iniquity, so much as in them 
lieth ; and to bring them unto the perfect knowledge, and perfect 
love, and dread of God, and unto the perfect charity of their neigh- 
bours." (Burnet's History of Reformation, part 1, Addend, to 
Record, p. 321.) Let the reader compare this quotation with Mr. 
A's statement, and he will perceive that the words in &mall caps,. 
are all that Mr. A. has given ; consequently, that his extracts are 
garbled. Those few words have been cut out, here and there, from 
this large paragraph, and placed by the side of words with which 
they have no connection, and which are found in no part of the 
document ! The reader sees for himself that the portion of the 
document given above, and in which only the words quoted by Mr» 
A. occur, describes the duties, not of any particular Order of Ministers ? 
but of the Ministry in general, as a Divine Institution. And, there- 
fore, to represent the document as declaring that the power "to order 
and consecrate others" belongs equally to Presbyters and Bishops, is 
erroneous. He might with as much fairness represent it as ascribing 
this power to the Deacons, since they are a part of the Ministry. 
Is this a candid and upright course ? Is it by such means that the 
theory of ordination by Presbyters is to be maintained ? What 
could be a stronger proof of conscious weakness, than a resort to such 
reprehensible and contemptible artifices ? 

The only plausible pretence for the first part of Mr. A's statement, 
viz. that they declared that Bishops and Presbyters, or Elders, are 
the same office, is found in the latter part of the document, which is,, 
that the Christian Ministry was committed by the Apostles, " to 
certain persons only, that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops," and 
that "in the New Testament, there is no mention made of any 
degrees and distinctions in Orders ; but only of Deacons, or Minis- 
ters, and Priests, or Bishops.," But another extract from it, and a 
few remarks from Burnet will set this right. "It was also ordained 
(says the document) and commanded by the Apostles, that the 



39 

same Sacrament of Orders should be applied and ministered 
by the Bishop [not Priest] from time to time, unto such other 
persons as had the qualities, &c." These extracts being put to- 
gether, it is evident that these Divines had adopted a theory then 
very prevalent, that is, that Bishops and Presbyters make up the 
Christian Priesthood — the former possessing superiority in this 
respect — as having the exclusive right to Ordain. Just as in the Old 
Testament, which is the model, the Priesthood was composed of 
Priests and High Priests — the latter possessing certain superior rights. 
The theory is perfectly consistent with Episcopacy, and equally 
irreconcilable with Presbyterian Ordination. Under the Mosaic 
Dispensation, the High Priest was over all the other Priesst, and he 
only could enter the Holy of Holies. And yet he is repeatedly 
called Priest, (see Ex. 29, 30 and Neh. 7, 65.) In the same manner 
it was sometimes customary to speak of the Bishop as a part of the 
one Priesthood, and to class both him and his Presbyters under the 
same term of "Priests." A Bishop is a Priest, but a Priest is not 
necessarily a Bishop — the latter being the specific title of those Priests 
who have inherited from the Apostles the power of Ordination and 
Government. 

Burnet gives the following explanation : Says he, *■ It was then 
[in the Primitive times] thought enough, that a Bishop was to be 
dedicated to his function by a new inposition of hands, and that 
several offices could not be performed without Bishops, such as 
Ordination, Confirmation, &c, but they did not refine in these 
matters, so much as to inquire whether Bishops and Priests differed 
in Order and Office, or only in Degree." He says in later times, the 
Schoolmen and Canonists, though from different motives, " studied 
to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one another/' "The 
Schoolmen having set up the grand mystery of Transubstantiation," 
wished to exalt the Priests, as much as possible, seeing they turned 
the bread and wine (in the Sacrament) into God. And that the Ca- 
nonists, endeavoured to depress the Bishops, in order to elevate the 
Popes. Hence it became common to speak of Bishops and Priests 
as the same office. Burnet adds, " It is no wonder if at this time [of the 
Reformation? the Clergy of this Church, the greatest part of them 
being still leavened with the old superstition, and the rest of them 
not having enough of spare time to examine lesser matters, retained 
still the former phrases in this particular. "For these [notions of the 
Schoolmen] are the very dregs of Popery, the one raising the Priests 
higher, for the sake of Transubstantiation, the other pulling the 
Bishops lower, for the sake of the Popes' Supremacy." (Hist, of 
Ref. Part, 4 page 366.) When it is remembered that some of these 
Divines, being Bishops, had been Consecrated, or in other words 
been Ordained, to a higher rank after they had received the Priest- 
hood, and that they were in the habit of Ordaining other Priests to the 
same rank, it must be evident they could not have intended to assert 
that all Priests have the right to Ordain by virtue of their second 
or Priestly ordination. And if they did not mean that, the document 



40 

contains nothing to Mr. A's. purpose* But even supposing that Mr. 
A. has correctly represented their opinions on this point, it avails 
nothing — they are but opinions. All the proof in this controversy 
must be drawn from the New Testament, and patristic writings. 
Besides, of all modern Divines these were at that time* least 
qualified to form a correct judgment — for the reason mentioned in 
Burnet's explanation. They were just beginning to emerge from the 
darkness of the age. Their knowledge of Scripture must then have 
been comparatively limited. Mr. A. would not be willing to take 
their opinions, as set forth in this document, upon some other points. 
For instance they call "Orders" a Sacrament — and not only call 
it so — but endeavor to prove it so by S< ripture. Thus in this- 
matter they have contradicted the doctrine of the Prayer Book,, 
(which was not completed until more than fifty years after) and 
therefore, it would be no matter of surprise, if, in their circumstances r 
they had erred as to Episcopacy. Again : they declared that one func- 
tion of the Ministry was " to consecrate the blessed body of Christ,, 
in the Sacrament of the Altar." Does not Mr. A. regard these as- 
serious errors ? Does he not believe them contrary to the New 
Testament? Yet these divines believe that they were contained in 
the New Testament. And if they misinterpreted the New Testa- 
ment in these particulars, surely it would not be surprising if they 
had misinterpreted it as to Episcopacy. These men were not the 
founders of the Church, nor were they the writers of the New Tes- 
tament, consequently their opinions, like those of other men, must be 
tried by Scripture, and the Primitive Church. 

The passage from Cranmer (without referenee, too,) is entirely 
irrelevant. We allow all that it states, that &t first Bishops and 
Presbyters were names of one office — which has been explained, I 
trust to the reader's satisfaction. It is certainly queer that Mr. A. y 
after stating that the Prayer Book, which maintains the three Orders 
Jure Divino, proceeded from Cranmer, should attempt to represent 
him as opposed to Episcopacy. Cranmer's real sentiments may be 
learned from the following statement put forth by his authority in 
1558, in a Sermon on the Power of the Keys : " The ministration 
of God's word, which our Lord Jesus Christ himself at first did in- 
stitute, was derived from the Apostles unto others after 

THEM, BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS. AND GIVING THE HOLY GoST, FROM 

the Aposules' time to our days. And this was the Consecration, 
Orders and unction, of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginnings 
made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church 
even to the world's ond." In 1558-9, the following eminent Divines, 
Sury, Grindal, Cox, Elmer, Great, Jewell and Horn, all of whom 
were Bishops, either at that time or subsequently, selected to conduct 
the Protestant controversy with the Romanists, maintain this asser- 
tion — " The Apostles' authority is derived upon after ages, 

AND CONVEYED TO THE BlSHOPS THEIR SUCCESSORS." (ColHer*S- 



1537 or 1538, according to Burnet 



41 

Eccles. Hist. 2, 414, 418.) He next gives us a passage from c< The 
Bishop of London.' There have been a great many Bishops of 
London — yet Mr. A. gives no name, date, or reference of any kind ! ! 
I shall therefore pass it over; for, upon the principle before stated, 
if any Bishop of London ever used such language, it proves nothing, 
except that he contradicts the Creed of his Church ; and, a man who 
denies what he professes to believe, is unworthy of credence. But 
his last testimony is the strangest of all. He gives us a passage from 
"Bishop Hooker ! !" No man of that name has ever filled an 
English See ! Quotations from Modern authors, if accurate ; as before 
remarked, prove nothing; but after such a blunder as this, the reader 
must perceive that Mr. A. is far from being infallible. 



CHAPTER V. 

Testimony of yion- Episcopalians in Favor of Episcopacy — Univer- 
sality of Episcopacy — Statements of Dr. Buchanan and Dr. 
Grant — Ml the Ancient Churches Episcopal. 
Now I will set before the reader testimony in favor of Episcopacy 
from writers who were not Episcopalians. And though it proves 
nothing positively — if the reader should not be satisfied with the 
reply which has been made to Mr. A's quotations from modern 
authors, it will at any rate neutralize any weight which they may 
possess. 

Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist Commentator, says : "Episcopacy, 
in the Church of God, is of Divine Appointment : and should be 
maintained and respected." " Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop, ex- 
isted in the Apostolic Church ; and therefore may be considered of 
Divine Origin." (Notes on 1 Tim. 3: 1, 13.) Here is language 
pertinent and unequivocal. Here is the " Divine Right of Bishops" 
asserted by the most learned man that was ever connected with 
Methodism — a man who had every temptation to believe the 
contrary. 

John Calvin, the Father of the Presbyterians, says — "Thus as we 
have said that a three-fold Ministry is commended to us in Scripture, 
in like manner, whatever the ancient Church had of the Ministry, it 
distinguished into three Orders (in tres ordines distinxit.) " For 
of the Order of Presbyters, part were appointed Pastors and Teachers, 
the other part presided over the regulation and correction of conduct." 
u Therefore, Jerome, where he speaks of five Orders in the Church, 
enumerates Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, the Believers and the 
Catechumens." (Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, chap. 4, sec 1.) 

Again : " Whence the ancient writers often mention this, that the 
Presbyter differed from the Bishop in nothing, unless in his not 
possessing the power of Ordaining" (lb. sec. 15.) 

John Le Clerc. — "But now there are two forms of Church Go- 
vernment, of which the one is, that where the Church acts under a 



42 

4 

single Bishop, who alone has the right of Ordaining Presbyters, and 
the other inferior Orders of Evangelical Ministers : and the other 
where the Church is governed by equal Presbyters, to whom are 
joined from the people, certain men of some prudence and irreproacha- 
ble conduct. Those who have read without prejudice the remains 
of the most ancient Christian writers, know well that the first form 
of Discipline, which is called Episcopal, such as we see in the 
southern part of Great Britain, was every where established in the 
very next age after the Apostles ; from whence it is reasonable to 
conclude that it was of Apostolic constitution. But the other which 
they call Presbyterian, was instituted in many parts of France, 
Switzerland, Germany and Holland, by those who in the sixteenth 
century seceeded from the Church of Rome." 

"Those who have read attentively the histories of that age," con- 
tinues the writer, "know perfectly well that this latter form of Church 
Government was introduced only because the Bishops refused to 
grant any reformation in those points of Christian doctrine and manners 
which were complained of as being corruptions. For otherwise, if 
the Bishops (of the Church of Rome) of that day had been willing 
to do every where, that which was shortly afterwards done in 
England, that same Church Government would have obtained at 
this day among all who seceeded from the Church of Rome, and 
thus innumerable calamities which have happened from the con- 
fusions and convulsions of Ecclesiastical affairs, might have been 
avoided. And a little farther on he says, that "whoever has read 
the writings of that most eminent man, Hugo Grotius, knows that 
he vehemently applauded the Episcopal Form of Government, such 
as obtained in England, u because, when he had studiously ex- 
amined the writings of Christian antiquity, he found it to be the 
primeval form." (Jo. Cler. de Eligendi inter dissent. Christ, 
sent. § 11, 12.) 

Again : Hugo Grotius recommended the Episcopal system to the 
Remonstrants (the Arminians) in Holland. "I advised them, (says 
he,) to select some amongst themselves for a more eminent grade, as 
Bishops, and to receive the imposition of hands from the Arch- 
bishop of Ireland, who is there, that so being Ordained, they might 
Ordain others" (Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christians p. 310: 
Lon. edit. 1813,) Le Clerc, was a Minister of the Dutch Church, 
and Grotius was a Presbyterian — two of the most famous scholars 
of the seventeenth contury.* Thus I have given the testimony of 

*I here add that Mosheim — the learned Church Historian of the 
Lutheran Persuasion, acknowledges that in the first century ', a person 
presided in the council of Presbyters to whom the name of Angel and 
afterwards that of a Bishop, was applied. (Eccles. History, 1st. 
Cent, part 2, ch. 2.) In the Book of Revelation, the Bishop of 
Ephesus, Sardis, &c, are addressed under the title of Angel. (Rev. 
2 and 3, chs.) In the Book ol Acts (chap. 20,) we learn that there 
were divers "Elders" at Ephesus. And therefore when St. John 



43 

four of the most celebrated non-Episcopalians that have ever lived. 
:ve also given ample references to the passages quoted, which Mr. 
A. has not done in a single instance. I see not how any one can re- 
sist such testimony, who is governed, at all, by modern authorities. 
[ would especially and respectfully commend to the notice of our 
Methodist brethren, with whom Dr. Clarke is high authority, the 
extracts from his learned Commentary. 

I have now furnished the most decisive testimony from the earliest 
Christian writers, (some of whom were cotemporary with the Apos- 
tles,) and from some of the highest authorities among non-Episcopa- 
lians, that Episcopacy is Apostolical and Divine. As we descend 
from the third century to modern times, the proofs of its existence 
co-extensive 'with Christianity, multiply with the increase of the re- 
cords and documents of Ecclesiastical history. The writings of 
ancient authors, and the Canons and Decrees of the Councils, afford 
an amount of evidence which even the most sceptical or most preju- 
diced cannot resist. And hence our ablest opponents in this contro- 
versy are compelled to admit that Episcopacy has prevailed at least 
ever since the second or third century. And yet from that very ad- 
mission, it follows to a moral certainty, that it is Apostolical. At the 
beginning of the third century, there must have been many Christians 
who had conversed with those who had lived within the Apostolic 
age. Consequently every one must have been familiar with the con- 
stitution and usages of the Apostolic Church — as much so as we are 
with the condition of the American Colonies previous to the Revolu- 
tion. And if Presbyters at first possessed the Ordaining power, they 
must have been deprived of it within, or very nearly within, the 
memory of those then living. And as it would have been an extra- 
ordinary change, and a matter of great interest, it is reasonable to 
suppose that some writer would have mentioned it : and yet all the 
ancient writers are wholly silent — not one mentions, or alludes to, 
such a change !* Consequently, when we ask our opponents for 
testimony that such a change occurred, they adduce some ambiguous 
or irrelevent passage, (such as Mr. A. quoted from Jerome,) while 
we can place against it half a dozen from the same writer, clearly 
and fully sustaining the Divine Origin of Episcopacy. And when we 
ask them to specify the date of this great change, (which every one 
must have known, if it had occurred,) we have this most satisfactory 
answer: " Some time in the second or third century" ! ! ! Again : 
Men, all the world over, and in every age, are exceedingly tenacious 

is commanded to write unto the Angel of the Church at Ephesus 
(Rev, 2,) the term must designate some one superior officer, such as 
a Bishop — so the ancient Fathers declares. Some suppose, and very 
reasonably, that those who inherited the ordaining commission from 
;he Apostles were for a while denominated Angels. 

* I have already shown that the change mentioned in the quotation 
from Jerome, occurred in the days of the Apostles, and by their 
authority, 



44 

of their rights. To resign authority and power, to which they have 
been accustomed, is what they will not quietly and tamely consent 
to. At the close of the Apostolic Age, there must have an immense 
number of Presbyters scattered nearly all over the then known world 
— all of whom, according to the theory of our opponents, possessed 
the high and inestimable right of conferring Orders. And yet, in 
the course of one century after, they resign ihat right, although a 
most precious inheritance received from the inspired Apostles, with 
the solemn injunction to hold it fast, and exercise it " until the ap- 
pearing of Jesus Christ" — I say, they resign that right without a 
struggle, and without a murmur, and quietly submit to the domination 
of a (ew ambitious "usurpers ! ! Can any one believe this ? Here 
is a question, not to " mathematicians," but to all who are in the 
smallest degree acquainted with history and human nature—" How 
much faith does it require to be" no " Churchman" ?* History 
faithfully records the encroachments of Tyrants in every age, whether 
Civil or Ecclesiastical, and the mighty resistance which they called 
forth ; but here hundreds of men, in almost every part of the world, 
are deprived of a Divine Right and most sacred depositum, and aba- 
sed to a lower grade, and yet History says not a word respecting the 
tremendous revolution — records not the protest — not even the lamen- 
tation, of one of these many deeply injured men ! Surely it must 
be obvious to any candid mind, that if such a change had occurred, 
there would be some notice of it in History — and since there is no 
such notice, it is morally certain that no such change occurred — that 
the regimen of the third century was the same as the Apostles instituted. 
Episcopacy now, as ever, is co-extensive with the Christian 
religion. All the oldest and largest Churches are Episcopal ; and in 
remote and secluded portions of the earth, modern travellers have 
discovered ancient Churches, with their Bishops, Priests and Dea- 
cons. Thus, on the coast of Malabar, in the south of India, Dr. 
Buchanan found multitudes of Episcopalians, who had from the earli- 



* " When (says Chillingworth, the great champion of Protestant- 
ism,) I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world 
lie down and sleep, and awake into Monarchies, then will I begin to 
believe, that Presbyterial Government, having continued in the Church 
during the Apostles' times, should presently after (against the Apos- 
tles' doctrine and the will of Christ) be whirled about, like a scene 
in a masque, and transformed into Episcopacy. In the meantime, 
while these things remain thus incredible, and in human reason im- 
possible, I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus : Episcopal 
government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the 
Church presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' 
times and this " presently after," there was not time enough for, nor 
possibility of, so great an alteration. * * * 
And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended ; and 
therefore Episcopacy, being confessed to be so ancient and Catholic, 
must be granted also to be Apostolic." 



45 

est times been cut off from all intercourse with other parts of Chris- 
tendom. In modern times, this people were rirst visited by the Por- 
tuguese in 1503. " When the Portuguese arrived," says Dr. Bucha- 
nan, " they were agreeably surprised to find upwards of a hundred 
Christian Churches on the coast of Malabar. Hut when they became 
acquainted with the purity and simplicity of their worship, they were 
offended. 4 These Churches,' said the Portuguese, 4 belong to the 
Pope.' • Who is the Pope V said the natives ; 4 we never heard of 
him/ The European Priests were yet more alarmed when they 
found that these Hindoo Christians maintained the order and disci- 
pline of a regular Church, under Episcopal Jurisdiction : and that 
for 1300 years past they had enjoyed a succession of Bish> ps, ap- 
pointed by the Patriarch of Jintioch. 4 We,' said they, c are of the 
true faith, whatever you from the West may be; for we come from 
the place where the followers of Christ were first called ( hristians.' 
(Antioch.) These Portuguese Romanists 4 accused them of the fol- 
lowing practices and opinions :' 4 That they had married wives ; that 
they owned but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper ; 
that they neither invoked Saints, nor worshipped Images, nor believed 
in Purgatory ; and that they had no other Orders, or names of dig- 
nity in the Church, than Bishop, Priest and Deacon?" — (Christian 
Researches in Asia, p. 56.) Dr. Buchanan states, that one of the 
Bishops " was desirous to know something of the other Churches 
which had separated from Rome, I was ashamed to tell him how 
many there were. I mentioned that there was a Kasheesha, or 
Presbyter Church, in our own Kingdom, in which every Kasheesha 
(Presbyter) was equal to another. 'Are there no Shimshanas V 
(Deacons in Holy Orders.) None. 'And what! is there nobody 
to overlook the Kasheeshas V Not one. 4 There must be some- 
thing imperfect there? said he. * * * * * I see it is with 
you, as it was in the first ages : new sects were produced by true 
piety, but it was piety founded on ignorance.' (lb., page 69.) 
Again : i4 These people, who still retain their ancient creed and usa- 
ges, consider themselves as the descendants of the flock established 
vy St. Thomas, who is generally esteemed the Apostle of the East." 
(lb. , page 96.) 

We have another similar instance, in the case of the Nestorian 
Christians, who, from time immemorial, have been secluded among 
the mountains of Koordistan, (Ancient Assyria.) Dr. Grant, a Mis- 
sionary of the American Board, has recently published a work, in 
which he gives an account of their manners and customs — in which 
the reader will find the following statements : u God has in great mer- 
cy preserved me through many perils, and brought me among a peo- 
ple who had received the Gospel from the Apostles, and immediate 
Disciples of our Saviour, and had preserved its doctrines with a 
great deal of purity." (Page 79.) ,c Their form of Church govern- 
ment is essentially Episcopal" [Page 105.) '■ Nestorian Churches 
and Prelates have flourished in an uninterrupted succession in the 
same places where they were founded by the Apostles, among the 



46 

Israelites." (Page 273.) " And all this while (since the com- 
mencement of the Christian ere) there has been a regular uninter- 
rupted succession of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Churches 
from the Apostolic times to the present day !" (Page 278.) This, 
reader, is the testimony of a non-Episcopalian.* If Episcopacy had 
not been instituted by the Apostles, is it not marvellous that various 
communities of Christians, tracing their descent from the Apostles, 
and secluded from other portions of the word, should have adopted 
it? Is it not marvellous that modern travellers have never discovered 
an ancient "Kasheesha, or Presbyter Church?" 

According to Hassel the Christian Population of the Globe amounts 
to 251 millions; of these 223 millions adhere to Episcopacy and 
Apostolical Succession — leaving only 28 millions who do not. Thus 
more than six-sevenths of Christendom are Episcopalians in Church 
Government. Let it be remembered, that these six-sevenths embrace 
the oldest Churches on earth — the English Church — the Greek 
Churcht — the Roman Church — the Swedish Church, and many 
smaller, but equally ancient in various parts of Asia. On the 



* Hear what Dr. Grant says respecting a custom of the Nestorians 
of kissing the Cross, as an expression of affection towards Him who 
died upon it, — U I must confess there is something affecting in this 
simple outward expression as practised by the Nestorians." "May 
it not be, that the abuse of such symbols bv the votaries of the Ro- 
man See, has carried us Protestants to the other extreme, when we 
utterly condemn the simple memento of the cross?" (P. 68.) If a 
Churchman had given utterance to these sentiments, they would 
have been trumpeted through the country as indicative of a most 
"alarming tendency." 

Dr. Grant, speaking of the Nestorians of Ooroomiah (p. 17 J says 
" They abhor image worship, auricular confession, and the doctrine 
of Purgatory, &c. so that, not inappropriately, they have been called 
the Protestants of Asia." The Bishop of Ooroomiah, when in this 
country recently, stated to a congregation of our Church in Boston : 
u Our Prayer-Books are like your Prayer Books." " We keep 
Christmas on the same day as you. We keep the forty days of 
Lent. We keep the day when Christ was Crucified — the day of his 
Ascension, &c." 

t The Greek Church protested against the Pope many Centuries 
before Luther. This Church in Russia alone, has 47 millions of 
members among whom the Scriptures are freely circulated. 

Sweden has between two and three millions, with 3500 Bishops 
Priests and Deacons. No country has been kept so free from Re- 
ligious dissent — none can show a more quiet, or more happy popula- 
tion — none posseses a more generally diffused education ; which is 
under the control of the Church. 

Denmark and Norway have a nominal Episcopacy — though, like 
the Methodists, they have lost the Succession. But even the shadow 
is better than nothing. 



47 

other hand, let it be remembered that the remaining one-sevenlh is 
composed wholly of innumerable sects that have sprung up only 
since the 16th Century — that they have been deprived of Episco- 
pacy by accident, rather than otherwise, and that some of their most 
distinguished leaders have given the most decided testimony in favor 
of Episcopacy : — let all this be remembered, and surely no one can 
hesitate as to which side is more likely to be right. Certainly it is 
not very moJest, not very reasonable, for so small a minority of 
Christians of modern origin to demand that we should give up what 
we believe to be Scriptural, merely because they are destitute of it — 
especially when we cannot conscientiously adopt any other Ministry, 
while they admit the validity of ours. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Apostolic Succession not denied through the Popes — Calvin 
Endeavored to Obtain an Episcopal Ministry — Parker's Corpse- 
cration — Introduction of Christainity into Britain. 

Apostolical Succession. 
Upon this point Mr. A. has committed the egregious, but very 
common, mistake of supposing that it depends upon the succession 
of the Popes. And therefore, has merely attempted to prove (or 
rather only asserted) that there is no certainty who were first Bishops 
of Rome* — that many of the Popes were not Bishops at all — and 



*I feel it my duty here to correct a mistake which Mr. A. has 
committed with regard to Eusebius. He says : "Eusebius (A. D. 
320) undertook to collect evidence on this point, yet he declares he 
had to tread an almost untrodden path with scarce any lights to direct 
him. All with him was uncertainty and doubt." 

The first paragraph in Eusebius, sets forth the subjects upon 
which he designs to treat, some of which I will mention in his own 
words. "It is my purpose, says he, to record the successions of the 
Holy Apostles, * * * * * to descrbe the calamities that swiftly 
overwhelmed the whole Jewish nation, in consequence of their 
plots against our Saviour * * * how often, by what means, and in 
what times, the word of God has encountered the hostility of the 
natives." From this, the reader at once sees that if Eusebius was in- 
volved in u uncertainty and doubt," then not only the Doctrine of 
Succession — but some of the most ^important proofs of the truth of 
Christianity are uncertain — for if Eusebius expresses any doubt, it is 
not with regard to the Succession only — but with regard to the 
subjects of his work in general. But he has expressed no doubt as 
to the certainty of the facts which he records. He merely offers an 
apology for the want of greater detail. It is true, he states that he 
was " attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten path." But by 
this, he merely means, (as the context shows) that he was the only 
individual who had undertaken to compose a regular history from 



48 

many of them very wicked men. All that he says upon these points, 
whether true or false, is entirely irrelevant. He has heaped together 
numerous quotations from various writers, and as usual, without a 
single reference, and by this time I think the reader has too many 
proofs of his want of accuracy to place much confidence in them, tf 
ail his alleged facts were true, they would not invalidate the doctrine 
of Apostolic Succession. We can clearly trace it without the 
intervention of a single Pope. He makes one assertion, however, 
which, to one not acquainted with the subject, may seem to be an 
exception — i4 that many who were merely Presbyters, were never- 
theless elected to the Popedom^ and Ordained seveal r of the English 
Bishops and Archbishops." That Presbyters have been elected to the 
Popedom, I do not dispute. But were they not Consecrated before 
they performed its functions? Mr. A. does not assert the contrary — 
though he assumes it — so that he virtually asserts that Presbyters 
ordained English Bishops — now if this were true, it would not be 
decisive, for there have always been various Bishops in the English 
Church, and a Consecration is never allowed without the assistance 
of two or three Bishops. And it invariably happens that the three 
Consecrating Bishops have been Consecrated themselves at distant 
intervals, and on various places and by different Bishops. And if it 
had happened that one of the consecrators in any particular instance 
had been Ordained by a Presbeter — the other two or even other one, 
might have transmitted the Succession unimpaired. But more of 
this anon. But this assertion though not essential, is an important 
one. And I submit to the candid reader, whether it should have 
been made without names or dates, or even authorities. I repeat 



the begining to his own times. He states expressly that " some had 
transmitted partial narratives of the times in which they lived." — 
44 We have collected," says he, " the materials that have been scattered 
by our predecessors, and culled as from some intellectual meadows, 
the appropriate extracts from ancient authors" Again : Eusebius, 
says, *■ Many learned men of the Church also flourished in these 
times of whom we may easily find epistles which they wrote to one 
another, still extant. These have been also preserved for us in 
the Library of Aelia, which was built by Alexander, who was Bishop 
there. From this, we have also been able to collect materials for 
our -present work." (Book 6, ch. 20 ) It is 'evident, then, that he 
had lights to direct him — the same lights which other historians 
have — " materials" contained in preceding writers. As to the truth 
of these materials, he does not express even a suspicion. He records 
with perfect confidence the Succession of Bishops at Jerusalem, 
Antioch, Alexandria, and other principal cities. Eusebius regarded 
the Succession (as did all ancient authors) as of the utmost impor- 
tance. (See his 1st chap.) I shall take no notice of Mr. A's 
short extracts from Pearson, Cave, Comber and others — for two 
reasons ; first, he has given no references, though their writings are 
very voluminous ; second, what they say relates only to the Papal 
Succession, which is a different thing. 



49 

it, Mr. A. might as well have spared himself the trouble of stringing 
together so many words, and contented himself with a simple denial 
of our claim — as to make unsupported assertions on a historical 
question.* It was not customary, at all, for the Popes to Consecrate 
Bishops. Besides, it could not have been done without the assistance 
of two other Bishops — as this was required by a Canon of the 
Council of Nice. And if the Pope had been only a Presbyter, the 
other Bishops were sufficient. Even St. Augustin, although he 
was sent to England by Pope Gregory, and by him appointed 
Archbishop of England, was not Consecrated by him — but by 
French Bishops. But Mr. A's unsupported assertion is an utter 
mistake. He may believe it, but he has been imposed upon by some 
ignorant or unprincipled author. An alleged fact of such moment, 
should never have been published without authorities — historical, 
impartial authorities; and not merely opinions of modern, interested 
Controversialists.! He has stated that " Calvin required Ministers 
coming from Roman Churches, to renounce their former Ordination." 
He has, of course, given no proof. But if Calvin did so, it is no 
wonder, since he had no Ordination himself. That a man pretending 
to no Ordination, should make light of it, is perfectly consistent ; 
but that one who professes to have been Ordained and exhibits so 
much indignation at the slightest intimation of the invalidity of his 
orders — should employ arguments, which, if they possess any force, 

* He says : " Omitting to name my authorities for the sake of 
brevity !" A single page would have held them all. 

t Since the above was written, I have been enabled to account for 
the mistakes which Mr. A. has made. He states, that u in his facts, 
he has principally followed Mr. Powell on Succession." One of 
our Periodicals which has just come to hand, gives the following 
account of Mr. Powell and his work : " Mr. Powell is an English 
Preacher in the Wesley an Society, who has recently published an 
Essay on Apostolical Succession, which has been lauded to the skies 
by Dissenters of every class, and is already triumphantly republished 
by the Methodist Book Concern at New York, who are labouring to 
give it the widest circulation. In all its references to ancient authors, 
it proves to be a most shameless tissue of perversion and falsehood, 
and we are glad to find that it has been unmasked in a valuable little 
publication entitled u The Weapons of Schism," by the Rev. Edward 
A. Stopford, a Clergymen of the Church of Ireland. For our know- 
ledge of this work, we are indebted to The Church, the Editor of 
which, after reading its complete exposure of Mr. Powell's wicked 
misrepresentations, justly characterizes the Essay as "an imposture 
unparalleled, perhaps, in the annals of literary dishonestyand political 
legerdemain. " 

Our contemporary gives copious extracts from Mr. Stopford's 
Review, exposing no less than eighteen absolute forgeries, nineteen 
studied misrepresentations, and we know not how many other con- 
4* 



50 

prove his own claims a nullity, also, is a very suspicious indication. 
It appears as if he were conscious that his own claims are untenable, 
and therefore, induced to attempt to prove those of others equally 
so. Mr: A., in the first part of his pamphlet, has striven very hard 
to prove the validity of Methodist Orders, upon the ground that they 
have been derived from an Ordained Cierygman of the Church of 
England, (Mr. Wesley.) And in the latter part, he attempts to 
prove, not only that the Orders of the Church of Rome are invalid, 
but those of the English Church, also ! Would a man who is fully 
persuaded of the legitimacy of his commission, attempt to nullify the 
authority that conferred it 1 

Mr. A. has asserted, that in the view of Calvin and others, the 
Ordination of the English Church was spurious, on the ground that 
it was derived from the Church of Rome. That this is another mis- 
take, is evident from the following authentic statement : u How Cal- 
vin stood affected in the said point of Episcopacy, and how readily 
and gladly he, and other heads of the Reformed Churches, would 
have received it, is evident enough from his writings and epistles.'' 
(Strype's Life of Bishop Parker, pp. 60, 70.) " They (the foreign 
Protestants) took such great joy and satisfaction in this King, (Ed- 
ward VI.) and his establishment of Religion, that Bullinger, and 
Calvin, and others, in a letter to him, offered to make him their De- 
fender, and to have Bishops in their Churches, as there were in 
England: with a tender of their service to assist and unite together." 
(Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 270.) 

Mr. A. asserts that Bishop Barlow was the only Consecrator of Bi- 
shop Parker. Here is another serious mistake. Parker was Conse- 
crated by four Bishops. Burnet says : " On the 17th December, 
1559, Parker was Consecrated in the Chapel at Lambeth, by Barlow, 
Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins." — (Hist, of Ref., part 2, p. 403.) 
Burnet states that the original instrument recording the Consecration, 

trivances of deceit; and he well observes, that such an attempt to 
despoil Episcopacy of the precious testimony of the Primitive Fathers 
should but confirm us in our estimation of the strength and justice 
of our cause ; "for it may reasonably be considered strong presump- 
tive evidence of the truth of any doctrine, fact, or opinion, that false- 
hood must be brought to bear upon it, in order to counteract its in- 
fluence or disturb its foundations." ( "Banner of the Cross" Dec. 
16th, 1843.) Such is the work which Mr. A. has followed, and 
which he says : "should be in the hands of every man who desires 
full information !" I have not seen Mr. Powell's work, nor Mr. 
Stopford's answer. But as Mr. A. has ' followed' the former, I suppose 
I have to perform the same duty as the latter. Here let the reader 
note that Mr. A's " facts," as he calls them, are derived, not from 
original sources, but from a Methodist Preacher of the 19th Century ! 
No wonder he has " omitted his authorities." He pretends to u Re- 
fute Prelatical Succession !" And what are the proofs ? The asser- 
tions of a Methodist Preacher ! ! 



51 

-s in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He gives a 
copy of it, which may be found among his u Collection of Records," 
part 2, p. 263. And of Barlow's Consecration, (which Mr. A. 
savs cannot be proved,) I have the most indubitable evidence now 
before me ; but as Parker had three other Consecrators, it is unne- 
cessary to spread it before the reader — especially as Mr. A. has not 
furnished even the shadow of a proof to the contrary. He under- 
took to "refute" " Prelatical Succession," and yet he has given us 
nothing but his own groundless suspicions, and empty assertions ! 

He has also committed several errors respecting the early intro- 
duction of the Gospel into Britain. He represents this position as a 
"device of recent origin,' invented on account of the "enormous 
wickedness of the Papal Bishops." Here are two mistakes. This 
44 device," as he calls it, is an historical fact, abundantly proved by 
the testimony of writers who flourished hundreds of years before the 
u enormous wickedness" of the Popes existed. There, is the most 
conclusive evidence that Christianity was introduced into Britian du- 
ring the first century — or within the Apostolic Age. I shall not, 
however, trouble the reader with the statements of ancient authors 
upon this point, but give the testimony of one whose learning and 
position render him, in this particular, a most suitable witness — I 
mean that most distinguished Methodist, Dr. Adam Clarke, This 
gentleman delivered an address, or essay, upon this very point in 
1814, at the formation of a Methodist Missionary Society in London, 
In this address, he has collected and examined most of the evidence 
bearing upon this subject. He has furnished extracts from Tertul- 
lian, Origen, Athanasius and Chrysostom in its favor — besides proofs 
from other sources, which the reader may examine for himself. I 
will only give the conclusion to which the Doctor arrives. " It 
would be easy," says he, " to increase the number of such testimo- 
nies : no fact is better proved, than that the British Isles have re- 
ceived the Gospel of Christ from the very remotest Christian 
Antiquity, nor is there found any writer of credit from the first cen- 
tury downwards, who states that the British Isles had not, in his 
time, received the doctrine of Christ. I conclude, therefore, that the 
Gospel was established here as early as even our traditions state ; 
and, very probably, by the Apostles themselves, or by persons imme- 
diately deputed by them" Again : "From nil that I have said, it 
will, I hope, fully appear, that we have received our Religion from 
the Apostolic times." — (Dr. Clarke's Address on the " Introduction 
of the Gospel into tie British Isles ;" appended to" Brown's History 
of Missions," vol. 2, pp. 565, 569.)* Let any one examine the 

* For the convenience of our own citizens, who may wish to exa- 
mine my quotation-. I add, that this work maybe found in the Penn- 
sylvania State Libr -y, together with the following works, which I 
have also referred to : Southey's Life of Wesley ; Buchanan's Re- 
searches ; Dr. Grant's " Nestorians ;" Burnet's History of the Refor- 
mation ; Eusebius' Church History ; Calvin's Institutes ; Dr. Henry's 
History of England ; Wilberforce's Life. 



52 

proofs which Dr. Clarke has collected, (though, as he says, many 
more might be given,) and he will feel satisfied that this conclu- 
lion is irresistible. But when Churchmen maintain this fact, it is 
not for the purpose of tracing the Succession, (as Mr. A. ought to 
have known,) but to sustain the roiginal independence of the British 
Church of the Pope, 

Dr. Clarke, then, being witness, fc ' the obscurity resting on the 
early history of the British Islands," is all in Mr. A.'s own head — at 
least as to this point. It is true, the precise year cannot be told with 
certainty, nor the person who first introduced it — though it is highly 
probable that it was St. Paul — but it is indubitably clear that it was 
as early as the beginning of the second century. Upon this point 
Mr. A. has said nothing which essentially affects " Prelatical Succes- 
sion." But it is due to Truth to rectify his mistakes, of which there 
is scarcely any end. Here is another : " There is no mention of 
Bishops in Great Britain until the middle of the fourth century," (A.. 
D. 350.) Three British Bishops were present at the Council of 
Aries, in France, A. D. 314. This is stated by Dr. Robert Henry, 
a Presbyterian Divine, in his History of England, (voL 1, p. 218 y 
4th London edition.) " We are assured (says Dr. A. Clarke, in the 
address before quoted,) that there were three British Bishops presenfc 
at the Council of Aries, held A. D. 314." Consequently, the Church in 
Britain must have then been fully organized, and probably long before. 
But beyond the sixth century, our Succession can be traced, not only 
through British Bishops, but also through those of Europe and Asia* 
If Mr. A. had paid that attention to the subject which he should have 
given it, he would have known this, and would have avoided the 
blunder of asserting that the Succession cannot be traced higher than 
the fourth century, because there were no Bishops in England before 
that time 1 

He says again : u But at that time, (A. D. 350) and long subse- 
qently, Bishops and Presbyters, or Elders, were titles of the same 
office." This is disproved by my quotations from Ignatius, Tertul- 
lian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen — all of whom wrote long 
before the fourth century. It is also contradicted by Mosheim, (a 
Lutheran.) He states that in the second century, a Bishop presided 
in every Assembly, assisted by a Council of Presbyters, who were 
aided by the Deacons. — (Church History, 2d Cent., part 2, chap. 2.) 

Mr. A. says : 9t The Abbot who first Preached in Britain, with 
success, was a Presbyter; and Aidan, who succeeded him, was ap- 
pointed and ordained Bishop by a company of Presbyters or Elders" !!! 
I have already furnished sufficient evidence that the Gospel was 
preached in Britain ,withnv)r very nearly within^the age of the Apostles, 
consequently, it was not by an Abbot, for such an Order of men had n© 
existence until long after that time. I have also proved that three 
Bishops, from Britain, attended the Council of Aries, A. D. 314 \ 
and I will here add, that Dr. Clarke, in the Address before quoted ? 
also states (and gives authorities, as every writer should upon such 



53 

subjects,) "that there were several British Bishops at the Council of 
Ariminium, (Rimini) held A. D. 359/' He further states, that Eccle- 
siastical Councils were held in England at these different periods: 
A. D. 446, 449, 465, 512, 516, (at this 'one, he says, all the Arch- 
bishops, Bishops, Abbots and Clergy of Britain were present,) and 
519. It would be easy to furnish proof in support of these statements 
of Dr. Clarke, but it is deemed unnecessary, as his Address, and 
authorities are probably as accessible to my readers as any others I 
might name. Moreover, it is a well known fact, that there were 
sundry Bishops in Britain at the time of the arrival of St. Augus- 
tin, A. D. 596.— (See Henry's History of England, vol. 3, p. 195.) 
Augustin held a conference with them, and made several proposals, 
which they steadfastly refused. These facts clearly show that, from 
the beginning to that time, there had been in Britain an independent 
Episcopal Church. 

Once more. Mr. A. says : u Bede, who wrote A. D. 731, is said 
to be the only historian on whose statements the least reliance can 
be placed." He does not tell us by whom this " is said." But it 
is Mr. Powell, I suppose, since he has " principally followed" him. 
It is, however, another error. There is a British historian of unques- 
tionable authority, who wrote about 200 years before Bede — Gildas* 
surnamed the Wise— a most excellent man, and faithful Preacher of 
the Gospel. Mosheim places him among the celebrated writers of 
the sixth century. — (Church History.) 

The pretended quotation (without references) from Bede, about 
4i one Wini," is too absurd to require notice — besides, if it had been 
true, it does not affect the truth of the Succession, as one " rightly 
Consecrated Bishop" could have transmitted the Apostolical Com- 
mission ; or the candidate could have gone to the Continent for Con- 
secration, as did Augustin. 

I have now examined the statements which Mr. A. has made, and 
shown, I trust, to the satisfaction of my readers, that they avail no- 
thing. It must be remembered that this (doctrine of Succession,) is 
an historical question — a question to be decided by historical facts*— 
and yet Mr. A. has not proved a single fact that has any direct bearing 
upon it. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Succession no New Doctrine — Held by Non-Episcopalians — True 
Statement of It — Scriptural Proofs of It — Historical Proofs. 
Some persons may imagine that this is a new doctrine — a claim 
just put forth by modern Episcopalians — a Puseyite invention. But 
this is a great mistake. It is neither new nor peculiar to the Episco- 
pal Church. It is as old as Christianity. We find it in the New 
Testament, and in numberless authors, of the first piety and learning, 
in every subsequent Age. It has been in the Prayer Book from its 
formation. In common with Episcopacy, it is held by six-sevenths 



54 

of Christendom. And moreover, it has been advocated, until re- 
cently, with as much zeal by the most distinguished individuals and 
communions rejecting Episcopacy — not, of course, Episcopal Suc- 
cession, but Presbyterian Succession — that is, that there has been an 
uninterrupted Succession of Presbyters from the days of the Apos- 
tles — a doctrine exposed to the same objections now urged against 
the Succession in the Episcopal line, and some athers much stronger 
— yea, absolutely unanswerable. 

I will begin with John Calvin. u Whoever, therefore," says he, 
• : either aims to abolish or undervalue this Order of which we are 
treating, (the Ministry) and this species of government, attempts to 
disorganize the Church, or rather, to subvert and destroy it altogether. 
For light and heat are not so essential to the Sun, nor any meat 
and drink so necessary to the nourishment and sustenance of the 
present hfe, as the Apostolical Office is to the preservation of the 
Church of the World™ — (Calvin's'lnst. lib. 4, ehap. 3, sec. 2.) Here 
the Apostolical Ministry is declared to be absolutely necessary to the 
preservation of the Church. Such language as this, used by a 
Churchman, would now be called " Puseyism." 

Again : " Our Lord, when he sent forth his Apostles, commissioned 
them to Preach the Gospel, and to Baptise all believers, for the re- 
mission of sins. He had already commanded them to distribute 
the Sacred Symbols of His Body and Blood, according to his own 
example. Behold the sacred, inviolable, and perpetual law imposed 
upon those who succeed in the place of the Apostles, (qui in Aposto- 
lorum locum succedunt ;} it commands them to Preach the Gospel,, 
and to administer the Sacraments, fib., Book 4, eh. 3, sec. 6.) 

While quoting Calvin on the Ministry, I cannot forbear to add a few 
more passages, that the reader may know the views of standard pub- 
lications among Dissenters. " In the communion of Saints, sins are 
'emitted to us by the Ministry of the Church, when the Presbyters 
or Bishops, to whom this office is committed, confirm pious con- 
sciences by the promise of the Gospel, in the hope of pardon and 
remission." " This benefit belongs to the Church, so that we can- 
not enjoy it, unless we continue in its communion,. Thirdly, that 
:t is dispensed to us by the Ministers and Pastors of the Church, 
either in the Preaching of the Gospel, or in the administration of the 
Sacraments ; and that this is the principal exercise of the power of 
the Keys, w 7 hich the Lord has conferred on the society of the Faith- 
ful. Let every one of us, therefore, consider it his duty not to seek 
remission of sins any where but where the Lord has placed it." 
(Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, chap. 1, sec. 22.) The Presbyterian 
Confession of Faith declares, tfc That neither of the Sacraments may 
be dispensed by any but a Minister of the word, lawfully Or- 
dained." (Confession of Faith, chap. 27, sec. 4.) " To these offi- 
cers (of the Church) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are 
committed. By virtue thereof, they have power respectively to re- 
tain and remit sins ; to shut that Kingdom against the impenitent," 
&c. (lb. chap. 30, sec. 2.) Again, with regard to the Lord's Sup- 



55 

per : " The body and blood of Christ being then not corporally and 
carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine, yet as really but 
spiritually present to the faith of believers in that Ordinance, as 
the elements themselves are to their outward senses. " (Chap. 29, 
sec. 7.) It would puzzle one to find stronger language upon any of 
these points in the Prayer Book, or even in the Oxford Tracts. An 
intelligent Presbyterian lady was asked what she thought of Dr. Pu- 
sey's Sermon on the Eucharist. She replied : " Before lean answer 
that question intelligently, I must first learn what our own doctrine 
is upon the subject." Let the Standards of the various Denomina- 
tions be investigated with regard to the points now so much contro- 
verted, and it will be seen that they contain a great deal of what is 
cried down as " Puseyism." 

Here I will subjoin an extract from No. 27 of the Oxford Tracts, 
respecting the presence of Christ in the Eucharist : " Hence it is 
most evident that the Bread and Wine are neither changed as to 
their substance, nor vanished, nor reduced to nothing, but are 
solemnly Consecrated by the words of Christ, that by them His 
Blessed Body and Blood may be communicated to us. And further, 
it appears from the same words, that the expressions of Christ and 
the Apostles are to be understood in a Sacramental and mystic sense, 
and that no gross and carnal presence of Body and Blood can be 
maintained." Does not this fully accord with the extract from the 
Presbyterian Confession of Faith ? It certainly is not Transubstan- 
tiation, for Transubstantiation implies a change of the substance 
of the elements, into the Body and Blood of Christ — so that the sub- 
stance no longer exists, but only the appearance. Such a change, 
I add, is also denied by Dr. Pusey, in the preface to his celebrated 
Sermon on the Eucharist. Many Protestants, as is well known, 
have charged that Sermon with Transubstantiation, but the periodi- 
cals of the Romanists, in this country, declared that it contained no 
such thing ! I have no wish to defend all the views contained in 
those Tracts : like other human compositions, they contain excep- 
tionable passages, but their errors have been greatly exaggerated. 

Again: The Commentary of the Westminster General Assembly 
of Divines, commonly known as the Assembly's Annotations, makes 
these observations upon John, 20th chap., 24th verse : ' ; As nay Fa- 
ther hath sent me, &c. He gave them a mission and charge before, 
but as Preachers to warn the Jews to hear Christ: but now He 
sendeth them as Apostles and Ambassadors to other nations — com- 
mitting the Ministry to their execution, which Himself had performed 
in teaching. He appointed them and their successors His Surro- 
gates in His absence." "Whosesoever sins ye remit," &c. (Matthew 
18 ch. 18 verse.) ''This power is equally given to all the Disciples, and 
their Successors, respectively : First, in respect to the doctrine of 
Faith and Repentance, as the Key of Heaven committed to their 
Ministry, which (according as it is received and obeyed,) bindeth and 
looseth." Again, in the Annotations on Matthew, 28 chap. 20 verse, 
we rind the following: "lam with you always. Though your 



56 

work be hard, I will assist you, and your Successors in the Minis- 
try, at all times, to the World's end" And when, under the usur- 
per Cromwell, Presbyterianism was for a time established upon the 
ruins of Episcopacy, similar claims were set forth in a work entitled 
K Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici : or, the Divine Right of 
Church Government, Asserted and Evidenced by the Holy Scrip- 
tures, &c. By sundry Ministers of Christ within the City of Lon- 
don." The second edition of this work was put forth in 1647. It 
says : " All power of Church Government is radically and funda- 
mentally in Christ. (Is. 9 chap. 6 verse; Matt. 28 chap, 18 verse.) 
And how shall any part of it be derived from Christ to man, but by 
some fit medium, or mean betwixt Christ and man ? And what 
medium, or mean of conveyance betwixt Christ and man, can suffice, 
if it does not amount to an authentic grant or commission for such 
power? This is evidently Christ's way to derive power by authen- 
tic commission immediately to His Church Officers, the Apostles, 
and their Successors, to the World's end" (Chap. 10, pp. 100, 
102.) As what was said to the Apostles touching Preaching and 
Baptising, remitting and retaining sins, was said to all the Apostles' 
Successors, to the end of the World." (John, 20 chap. 20, 21, 23 
verses, with Matt. 28 chap. 18, 19, 20 verses, chap. 4, p. 14..) 

I here insert a passage from Bishop Henshaw's " Lectures on the 
Construction of the terms Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice :" 

II We give the following extract from the Rev. J. Cumming, a Mi- 
nister of the Kirk of Scotland, from which it appears that there are 
still some Presbyterians who admit that the Doctrine of Apostolical 
Succession is not the worst of heresies, and that Episcopacy has no 
affinity with Popery : 

11 i All our old Scottish Divines, among whom the Gillespies oc- 
cupy a prominent place, held Apostolical Succession not only to be 
the possession, but the high and happy privilege of our Presbyters. 
In fact,I cannot but believe that the question of Apostolical Succession 
involves and includes the question of Ordination or non-Ordinatioiu 
* * * g ut w herein do we differ about Succession ? In the Church 
of England, it is generally supposed to descend in the line of Bishops 
— and with us in the line of Presbyters. * * * * It is this view 

THAT LEADS US TO REGARD THE INDEPENDENTS AS CHRISTIANS WITH- 
OUT A Church, and to insist on the Ordination of Independent Mi- 
nisters before they could hold a Benefice, or officiate in our Com- 
munion. 

" ' There is not a Clergyman in the Church of Scotland, who 
would continue to hold his Benefice with Independent Ordination, 
and sure I am that there is not one who dares avow his preference of 
it ; for against no Forrr. of Church Government has the Scottish 
[Presbyterian"] Church made a firmer stand than that of Congrega- 
tionalism, or Independency. The Orders of an Episcopal Minister 
are distinctly admitted and sustained by the ^Presbyterian'] Church 
of Scotland, but those of Independency are treated, and justly, as 
no right Scriptural Ordination. Indeed, apart from all conside- 



57 

rations of Ministerial Succession, nothing can open so effectually a 
door to every extravagance in Doctrine, and every arrogant assump- 
tion of fanaticism, as the plan of Independency. The man thai con- 
ceives, justly or unjustly, that he has a Call from God to enter on 
the Ministry, has only to bring together a few as wild and well mean- 
ing as himself, and, in a twinkling, he is registered as the Rev. Mr. 
Such-a-one, Minister of the Church assembling in such a Chapel, 
and in proportion to the success of such empiricism will be the rarity 
of learning and weight in the Christian Ministry. * * * * I hold 

THE IMPORTANCE OF MINISTERIAL SUCCESSION FROM THE DAYS OF 

the Apostles : I claim it for my own beloved co-Presbyters ; and 
I cannot see that because this great truth has been abused, it is 
to be trampled on and despised, as it has been by many who have 
plunged into the opposite extreme.' " 

It seems, then, that other Protestant Ministers have claimed to be 
the Successors of the Apostles, too ; and this claim would never have 
been abandoned, had it not been so clearly proved that there can be 
no Succession of the Ministerial Commission, except through the 
Bishops. 

I will now add, for the benefit of our Methodist brethren, the views 
of Mr. Wesley. u We account," says he, u Ordination to be of 
Divine Institution, and that by it a Ministerial Commission is 
conveyed." (Wesley's Works, vol. 10, p. 47, Harpers' ed. 1827.) 
" Our Lord gave this Commission (to Baptise) only to the Apostles, 
and their Successors in the Ministry." (lb. vol. 10, p. 57.) " We 
believe it would not be right for us to administer, either Baptism or 
the Lord's Supper, unless we had a Commission so to do, from those 

Bishops WHOM WE APPREHEND TO BE IN A SUCCESSION FROM THE A POS- 

tles." u We believe that there is, and always was, in every Chris- 
tian Church, (whether dependent on the Bishop of Rome, or not,) an 
outward Priesthood, Ordained by Jesus Christ, and on outward 
Sacrifice offered therein, by men authorized to act as Akbassadors 
of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God." (lb. vol. 2, 
pp. 74, 75.) What a u Puseyite" Mr. Wesley was ! 

My quotations from Calvin, the Westminster Divines, &c, show 
clearly that non-Episcopalians of former times maintained and advo- 
cated the Succession, as strenuously as any " High Churchman ;" 
but their children have taken different ground. It is now denounced 
as the essence of Popery — those who believe it are rapidly undergo- 
ing an " awful change." It does not seem to occur to our accusers, 
that the change is in themselves. But all this, I suppose, is the 
progress of Reform : and when will this Reform be completed ? Ask 
the Rationalists. But let this Doctrine of Apostolical Succession 
be candidly considered and properly understood, and it will be seen 
that it is far from deserving the anathemas which have been heaped 
upon it. What is it, then ? It is all comprehended in these simple 
and innocent propositions : First, That the Saviour authorized Hub 
Apostles to act as His Ambassadors — to Preach the Gospel, to admi- 
nister the Sacraments, and to exercise the Discipline of his Church. 



58 

This no one will dispute — the Scripture proof is too plain : " As my 
Father hath sent me, even so send I you. (John, 20 : 21.) M Go 
ye, therefore, and teach all Nations, Baptising them," &c. — u teach- 
ing- them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; 

AND 10, I AM WITH YOU ALWAY, EVEN UNTO THE END OF THE WOULD." 

(Matt. 28 : 19, 20.) " Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be 
bound in Heaven," &c. (Matt. 18 : 18.) St. Paul and St. Timo- 
thy afterwards say, that they acted u in Christ's stead" — that they 
were his " Ambassadors," and that God " besought" men through 
them. (2 Cor. 5: 20.) The first proposition, then, is unques- 
tionable. 

The Second is, That they imparted similar authority to others — 
though different degrees of it to different classes, or Orders of men — 
to one class, authority to Preach and Baptise, which embraced the 
Deacons ; to a second, the additional authority to administer the other 
Sacrament, called Presbyters : and to a third, or higher class, besides 
the authority given to the other two, the authority to Commission 
other men in like manner, who became their Successors. We find 
an account of the first class, in the 6th chapter of "Acts." There 
are many allusions to the second, but I shall refer to but one — Acts, 
20 : 17, 38. Here St. Paul gathers around him the Presbyters (El- 
ders) of Ephesus, and gives them a final charge, expecting to see 
their face no more, and yet he says not a word to them about Ordi- 
nation — from which it is evident they did not possess the authority 
to confer it — at least, when taken in connexion with the fact that the 
New Testament nowhere ascribes to them this authority. And now, 
do we not find the third class in the New Testament — a class of 
men whom the Apostles endowed with authority to Commission 
other men to act as Ministers ? In support of this there is abundant 
proof furnished ; First, by the fact that other men were admitted to 
the Apostleship. Thus, in the first chapter of " Acts," we learn 
that the Apostles put Matthias in the place of Judas, " and he was 
numbered with the eleven Apostles," Next, St. Paul was u call- 
ed" and " Ordained to be an Apostle." (Rom. 1 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 2: 7.) 
Barnabas also was placed in the same office ; u which, when the 
Apostles Barnabus and Paul heard of," &c. (Acts, 14: 14.) Again, 
Sylvanus and Timothy became Apostles. (See 1 Thess. 1 : 1 &2 ; 
6, 8.) We might name more, but these are sufficient to prove that others 
beside the Twelve received the office of the Apostleship. But some 
may fancy that it was only the Name that they received. But is it likely 
that the title would have been given, without the office — a title which had 
been appropriated to the Twelve from the begining? But we have 
Scripture proof thatthey received the Office — the authority to Ordain 
and Superintend. I have already shown that Paul and Barnabas 
were Apostles, and that they exercised the peculiar and exclusive 
prerogative — the Ordaining power — of the first Order, is stated 
in Acts, 14, 23 : " And when they had Ordained them Elders (Presby 
ters) in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended 
them to the Lord, in whom they believed." The context (see verses 



59 

A, 20) show that Paul and Barnabas are here spoken of. The 14th 
verse calls them Apostles, and the 23d verse states that they Ordained 
Presbyters in every Church. Now, that the Elders, or Presbyters, 
(for these terms are synonymous in the New Testament,) were a dis- 
tinct class, or Order, from those called Apostles, is clearly proved by 
several passages of Scripture. Thus, when the controversy respect- 
ing Circumcision arose in the Church, it is stated that u the Apostles 
d Elders came together to consider of this matter." (Acts, 15:6.) 
Again : " The Apostles and Elders, and brethren, send greeting unto 
the brethren which are of the Gentiles." (Acts, 15: 23.) If the 
Apostles and Elders had not formed distinct classes, or Orders, they 
would of course have been included under one name in such passa- 
ges. And what could have constituted the ground of distinction, but 
what I have stated ? It was not that the Apostles wrought miracles : 
for the Presbyters did the same — yea, the Deacons — yea, even 
the laity. It was not that the Apostles witnessed the Resurrection : 
for it is said, "He was seen by 500 brethren at once." But, to pro- 
ceed with our proof that the Apostles conveyed the Ordaining autho- 
rity to others, w T ho were likewise, at least for a time, called Apostles. 
St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, treats of the qualifications of 
Ministers of the Church — gives him sundry directions respecting 
the administration of Discipline, some of which show that he presi- 
ded over the Elders — thus, he tells him, " Against an Elder receive 
not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." Finally, he 
tells him : "Lay hands suddenly on no man ;" which is obviously a 
caution not to Ordain hastily. Now, let it be remembered, that Ti- 
mothy was at Ephesus, (1 Tim. 1 : 3) and that there were sundry 
Elders in the same city ; (Acts, 20 : 17,) and the conclusion is irre- 
sistible, that as ancient authors declare, Timothy was Bishop* of 
Ephesus, in the present sense of the word. This is confirmed by a 
passage in St. Paul's second Epistle to him : M The things that thou 
hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to 
faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Here, it 
is obvious, that Timothy received the Apostolical Commission to 
commission others ; consequently, he was a Successor of the Apos- 
tles, and thus we find Apostolical Succession in Scripture. Again : 
We have a similar proof in the case of Titus. St. Paul says to him : 
" For this cause left I thee in Cretet ; that thou shouldest set 
in order the things which are wanting, and Ordain Elders in 

EVERY CITY, AS I HAD APPOINTED THEE." (TitllS, 1 : 5.) Here 18 

demonstration that Titus received from St. Paul the same plenipo- 
tentiary Commission which he had received from the Saviour. Here, 
then, according to Scripture itself, is another Successor of the 

lo Rev. 2 : 1,7, some one is addressed under the title of Angel. 
Who could it have been but a Bishop ? — for, as stated in the Acts of 
Apostles, Ephesus contained sundry Elders. 

t Crete was a large and populous Island in the Mediteranean, 
containing numerous cities. 



60 

Apostles, and another instance of Apostolical Succession. It 
would be easy to multiply proofs, but it is needless — two well 
established instances, such as these of Timothy and Titus, are as 
good as a score. These prove incontestibly, that as far down as the 
New Testament History extends, the Apostles had Successors. 
Consequently, that the Apostolical Succession can be traced in Holy 
Scripture, from Matthew to Revelation. If, then, the Scriptures 
teach that the Apostles had Successors, is it not palpably erroneous 
*o represent the very idea as absurd and arrogant? If Timothy and 
Titus received from the Apostles the Ordaining Commission, and 
became their Successors — is it a very improbable notion that others 
have inherited the same gift? So far from being improbable, there is 
obviously the highest presumption in its favor. If Timothy and 
Titus received this Commission, it must have been necessary to the 
welfare of Christianity. But there was no necessity then for such 
a Commission, that has not existed with equal force in every subse- 
quent Age. If the Gospel was to be Preached, and the Church 
perpetuated until the Second Advent of the Redeemer, of course, 
Ministers were to be chosen and Ordained for the purpose — and this 
rendered a transmission of the original Commission, as necessary 
for one Age as another. And since it was necessary, the Apostles 
must have designed it. And moreover, the Saviour himself must 
have designed it, when he promised to be with the Apostles "to the 
end of the word." That he may fulfil this promise — that he may 
be with the Apostles ' to the end of the world" in the propogation 
of the Gospel, there must be Apostles (in Office and Authority,) 
to the end of the world." But since the first Apostles soon died, it 
was necessary that others should succeed them. These and other 
circumstances which could be mentioned, manifestly create a strong 
presumption in favor of this Doctrine, indeed the latter, the promise 
of the Saviour, furnishes much more than a presumption. His 
promise cannot have failed. And since a Succession of similar 
Officers was necessary to its fulfilment, that Succession must have 
continued unbroken. But as a historical fact, there is none better 
established. I have already proved from Scripture that the Apostles 
did commit the authority to Ordain and superintend to other men. 
And here, of course, Scriptural proof ceases, because the Scripture 
history closes with the Lives of the Apostles. Scripture cannot 
record what occurred long after it was written. But we have other 
evidence of the continuance of this Succession, of which Scripture 
relates the beginning — evidence most indubitable. We have the 
testimony of writers who lived at the close of the same Age — 
writers who lived in the next Age, and so on, down to the present. 
If any Christian feels unwilling to receive the Testimony of the 
Fathers,* we have only to remind him that it is by their testimony that 
we determine the New Testiment Canon — which is a matter of the 



* We are not bound to receive all their Doctrinal Opinions ; but 
only their testimony, as competent witnesses of facts. 



61 

greatest moment, as our Faith depends upon the Books of Scripture, 
If we did not know that the Apostles, or men under their direction, 
wrote the Gospel, we should have no assurance of their Truth. But 
how do we know that? By the Testimony of the Fathers. Again : 
The Books of Scripture were composed by different persons, and at 
distant periods, and fur a long lime they were not bound together as 
now. But how do we know that these Books were really written 
at the time, and by the persons alleged ? By the same Testimony — 
the writings of later authors, called Fathers. If, then, the testimony 
of these men be credible in questions, essentially affecting the Truth 
of Christianity, it must be credible in the one under consideration. 
The reader has already seen that these authors bear the most decided 
Testimony in favor of Episcopacy. And if Christians receive their 
Testimony in a matter involving their Faith, how can they consis- 
tently reject it in the matter of Episcopacy? 

.Now, these same authors, whom we all believe when testifying 
that such a Book was written by such an Apostle, and universally 
acknowledged as genuine in their day — likewise testify, that certain 
men succeeded in the Apostolic Office thsse whom the Apostles 
co i missioned. And if we are bound to believe in the former case, 
w are equally bound to believe in the latter. Their writings 
(particularly those of Eusebius,) prove incontestably that the Succes- 
sion was conveyed down to the Fourth Century.* And in the early 
part of the Fourth Century, the Council of Nice was held, which 
was attended by 318 Bishops t from all parts of the w r orld. And so 

* Irenaeus who was Ordained by Polycarp, the Disciple of St. 
John, Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 178, says: " We can reckon up 
tit )se whom the Apostles Oruained to be Bishops in the several 
C '.relies, and who they were that succeeded them down to our 
own times. For the Apostles desired to have those in all things 
perfect and reprovable, whom they left to be their Successors, and to 
whom they committed their own Apostolic authority. We have 
the Successions of Bishops to whom the Apostolic Church im 
ry place was committed. All these (viz. the heretics) are 
much later than the Bishops to whom the Apostles did deliver the 
Churches." (Adv. Heere, L. 3, c. 40 

And TertuHian, A. D. 200, iin the passage already quoted, see 
patre 24,) maintained the same fact. And he employed it to test the 
claims of the schismatics of his day. u Let them,*' syas he, "un- 
roll the list of their Bishops, descending by Succession from 
*H beginning." So Churchmen now say to those who dissent from 
them. We '* unroll our list," and challenge them to do the same. 

Again : Cyprian, A. D. 250, asserted the same fact — as shown bv 
the quotation on page 62. Eusebius gives the Succession in several 
Churches down to A. D. 305. And the English Reformers, like- 
wise, claimed the Succession : See quotations on page 40. 

tHere let me state that these were the noble men who raised the 
standard of Gospel Truth against the heretical Teachers who 
denied the Deity of our Adorable Redeemer. 



62 

highly did they value the Succession — and so anxious were they to 
perpetuate it unimpaired, that they passed a Canon prescribing that 
a Bishop should not be Ordained, except by all the Bishops of the 
Province ; or if all could not be present, that there should be at least 
three to unite in the Ordination, and that the absent ones should give 
their consent. (See Canon 4.*) These Bishops declared that their 
object was not to make new regulations, so much as to reduce to law 
the usages which had previously prevailed. And, therefore, it is 
probable that this practice had prevailed all along. Now this Canon 
rendered a breach in the Succession morally impossible. As it was 
passed by the Representatives of the Church in every part of the 
world — it was universally received by the Church. And it has bean 
every where, and always, acknowledged to be binding. In the early 
times, the Diocesses were much smaller than now, and the Bishops 
were consequently very numerous. There has been no Age in 
which there were not hundreds of Bishops, scattered over the whole 
known world. And since the Church every where required that a 
Bishop should be Ordained by three or more Bishops, and which 
was always done in public and after due election, it was impossible 
for any one not Rightly Ordained, to assume and exercise the office 
without detection. This will appear indubitable to any one who 
considers whether such an imposture could succeed now. Suppose 
some Layman or Presbyter were to claim Episcopal Authority — 
would our Church receive him as a Bishop? Would any of our 
People accept Orders or even Confirmation at his hands? JNo. He 
would be at once advertised as an imposter, and covered with dis- 
grace and infamy. But suppose he were to attempt to exercise the 
Episcopal Prerogatives elsewhere? Would it not be equally im- 
possible for him to succeed in passing himself off as a genuine 
Bishop ? I know he might get up a party or sect that would ac- 
knowledge him as a Bishop, in some sense of the word — but the 
Church would not forget 'the illegitimacy of his origin, and would 
not receive him to her Communion, until he renounced his false 
claims. History would not fail to record, when, where and how, 
both he and his sect arose. But we need not suppose a case. We 
have at least one fact now before us. Nearly sixty years ago, a 
Presbyter by the name of Coke, pretenedd to be a Bishop, laid his 
hands on other men, and pretended to make them Bishops likewise. 
Was he ever acknowledged by the Church as a Bishop? Did lie 



-The Council of Aries (A, D. 314) which was attended by 
British Bishops, required by their 27th Canon, that a Bishop should 
not be Ordained, except by at least three other Bishops. Cyprian, 
(A. D. 259; states that such was the custom in his time. And the 
Apostolical Canons, which date further back still, contain a similar 
injunction, (Canon 1.) These facts render it exceedingly probable 
that this usage prevailed from the beginning. Tne Apostolical 
Canons are said to have been composed by St. Clement, from the 
dictate of the Apostles. 



63 

not state, in his letters upon the subject of his return to the Church, 
that he was willing to submit to what the Church would require — a 
re-Ordination? Again: Has time effaced the remembrance of the 
spuriousness of his claims ? Is the Ordination which he conferred 
upon others yet acknowleded by the Church to be valid? No, 
and never will be. Every Methodist Preacher who enters our 
Ministry, enters it like any other Layman — thurogh the humble door 
of the Deaconship. The Letters of Wesley and Coke, and all other 
documents relating to the alleged Ordination, are already Recorded 
upon the page of History, and they will descend to the latest Pos- 
terity. But there are other similar facts of still more weight, 
because extending back much further. About 300 years ago 
Luther a Presbyter, and Calvin a Layman, usurped the Episcopal 
Authority. The Ordination which they conferred, was then con- 
sidered invalid by all the Old Churches of the Age.* Have these 
Churches since recognized its validity ? No, and never will. No 
one who traces his Orders to these men, would be acknowledged as 
a valid Minister, by an Episcopal Church in this country, or in 
England, or in Russia, or in Greece, or in Denmark, or in India, 
or any other part of the world. If, then, it has been impossible 
for any one, not Ordained by a Bishop, to pass himself off as a 
genuine Presbyter or Bishop during the last three centuries- — i: 
must have been equally impossible in any preceding Age, since the 
same regulations and restrictions have always prevailed. Conse- 
quently, it is a moral certainty that the Succession is unbroken. 

The present Bishops of the Church are assured that they 
were Ordained by those who had been validly Ordained. Those 
who Ordained them had the same assurance ; and their predecessers 
had the same assurance, and so on, up to the Apostles. In everv 
period, the usurper of Ministerial authority was sure to be detected 
and exposed, as there were the same motives, and the same princi- 
ples, and the same laws operating, to guard the Episcopal office from 
intruders. Let our opponents prove that any Bishop, upon whom 
our Succession depends, was not validly Consecrated ; for when a 
person alleges that principles and regulations were disregarded by 
any branch of the Church that acknowledged them, the burden of 
proof devolves on him. But this cannot be done. Mr. A. has tried 
it, but failed completely. He has given nothing but unsupported as- 
sertions — assertions, too, which, if true, would not " refute" the Suc- 
cession. For, let the reader note, that even if it were proved that 
any particular Bishop was not validly Ordained, it would not n< 

* Hooker, the able Champion of Episcopacy, who wrote in 1594, 
thus addresses" the innovaters of his day : "We require you to find 
out but one Church upon the face of the whole earth, that 
hath been Ordered by your Discipline, or hath not been ordered by 
ours, that is to say, by Episcopal Regimen, since the time that 
the Blessed Apostles were here Conversant." Two Centuries and 
a half have rolled away and this challenge remains unanswered ! 



64 

sarily impair the Succession — for these reasons : First, There have 
been Bishops who never took part in the Ordination or other 
Bishops, and such might have been the case with that particular Bi- 
shop. Second, According to a rule established by the Council of 
Nice, and prevailing long before, three or more Bishops united in 
conferring Consecration. Consequently, if one of them had been 
destitute of valid Consecration, the others would have been sufficient 
to transmit the Episcopal authority. But, it has never bhen pro- 
ved that even a single Bishop, acknowledged as such by the 
Church, was not truly Consecrated. The fact that it has always been 
a matter, both of custom and of law, for sundry Bishops to assist at 
the Consecration of another, imparts to the Succession a degree of 
security and certainty which must prevent the least suspicion in a 
reasonable and candid man. If there had been but one Bishop at a 
time in the Church, the Succession would always have depended 
upon the validity of the Consecration of that one man ; and there- 
fore, there would have been some room for doubt. But there have 
always been hundreds of Bishops, and if the Succession had failed 
by the death of a Bishop, or otherwise, in any given portion of the 
Church, it was easy to recover it again. Before the Revolution, our 
Clergy were Ordained by Bishops in England : and when it became 
necessary for us to have a Bishop, Dr. White was elected and sent 
over to England for the Episcopal Succession — where he was duly 
Consecrated by four Bishops. Three other Clergymen of our 
Church were likewise Consecrated abroad. So that no Consecration 
was performed by Bishop White in this Country until he had three 
other Bishops to assist him. And in many instances, in this Country 
and in England, five, six, a and even seven Bishops, have united in the 
same Consecration. This is an important circumstance in the 
argument, and yet it is often overlooked by those who deny the 
Succession. They view it as if descending by a single line, and 
consequently they conclude that it is as uncertain as the Succession 
of the Popes. But there are several lines or chains, involving at 
every link a considerable number of Bishops. Three is the smallest 
number allowed to Consecrate — though in many instances the num- 
ber was larger — now, of course, every Bishop engaged in the Con- 
secration gives it additional security: Any given Bishop was Ordained 
by three others. Each of these three had three others, which make 
nine at the second step. Each of these nine had three likewise, 
which is 27 at the third step, and so on in three fold proportion. It 
is true, some of these assisted in Consecrating the same men ; but 
after all reasonable reduction, it is still certain that hundreds of 
Bishops have concurred in transmitting the Apostolical Succession to 
each and every Bishop of our Church. Here, then, are securities 
almost infinite in number. And surely, to doubt in such a case is 
skepticism indeed. 

As different Apostles founded different branches of the Church, 
the different branches trace their Succession to different Apostles, 
and through different lines. Thus, the Greeks trace their line to St. 



65 



Paul — the Syrians and Nestorians, to St. Thomas, and the English 
Church, and the American Church to St. John. I will now comply 
with Tertullian's test — u Unroll our list of Bishops," and prove 
our Apostolic descent. Bishop White (through whom our present 
Bishops have received the Episcopal Commission) was Consecrated 
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by others. By the 
following list, we trace the Succession from the " beloved" Apostle 
St John, through the Episcopate of Lyons, in France, and that of 
Canterbury, in England, down to Bishop White : 



ST. JOHN 

1 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna 

Bishops of Lyons. 
1 Pothinus. 



2 Ireneus. 

3 Zacharias. 

4 Elias. 

5 Faustinus. 

6 Verus. 

7 Julius. 

8 Ptolemy. 

9 Vocius. 

10 Maximus. 

11 Tetradus. 

12 Verissimus. 

13 Justus. 

14 Albinus. 

15 Martin. 

16 Antiochus 

17 Elpidius. 

18 Sicarius. 

19 Eucherius, 1, 

20 Patiens. 

21 Lupicnus. 

22 Rusticus. 

23 Stephanus. 

24 Viventiolus. 

25 Eucherius, 2. 

26 Lupus. 

27 Licontius, 

28 Sacerdos. 

29 Nicetus. 



St. assisted by ^Etherius, 31st 
John Bishop of Lyons, 



30 Priscus. 

31 iETHERius, A. D. 589. 

CANTERBURY. 

32 A. D. 596. Augustine, Mis- 64 Stigand, 

sionary to the Anglo Saxons, 65 Lanfranc, 
33d was Consecrated by Virgi- 66 Anselm, 
from lius, 24th Bishop of Aries, 
5* 



34 Lawrence, A. D. 605 

35 Mellitus, " 619 

36 Justus, 

37 Honorius, 

38 Adeodatus, 

39 Theodore, 

40 Brithwald, 

41 Tat wine, 

42 Nothelm, 

43 Cuthbert, 

44 Bregwin, 

45 Lambert, 

46 ^Ethelred, 1. 

47 Wulfred, 

48 Theogild or Feogild, 
Consecrated, June 5th, 
and died Sept. 3d. 

49 Coelnoth, ? Sept. 

50 iEthelred, 2d, 

51 Phlegmund, ' 

52 Athelum, or Adelm, ' 

53 Wulfelm, 

54 Odo Severus, * 

55 Dunstan, ' 

56 iEthelgar, 

57 Siricus, ' 

58 Aluricus, or Alfricus, l{ 

59 Elphege, A.D. 1005 

60 Living, or Leoning, 
orElkskan, " 1013 

61 Agelnoth, or iEthelot " 1020 

62 Edsin, or Elsin, 

63 Robert Gemeticensis, 



624 
634 
654 
668 
693 
731 
735 
742 
759 
763 
793 
803 
830 



830 
871 
891 
923 
928 
941 
959 
988 
989 
996 



1038 
1050 
1052 
1070 
1093 



66 



CANTERBURY— CONTINUED, 



D. 



67 Rodulph, A. 

68 William Corbell, 

69 Theobold, 

70 Thomas a Beckett, 

71 Richard, 

72 Baldwin Fordensis, 

73 Reginald Fitz Joceline 

74 Hubert Walten, 

75 Stephen Langton, 

76 Richard Wethersfleld, 

77 Edmund, 

78 Boniface, 

79 Robert Kilwarby, 

80 John Peckham, 

81 Robert Winchesley, 

82 Walter Reynold, 

83 Simon Mepham, 

84 John Stratford, 

85 Thos. Bradwardine 

86 Simon Islip, 

87 Simon Langham, 

88 Wm. Whittlesey, 

89 Simon Subbury, 

90 William Courtnay, 

91 Thomas Arundel, 

92 Henry Chichely, 

93 John Stafford, 

94 John Kemp, 

95 Thomas Bourcher, 

96 John Morton, 



1114 97 Henry Dean, A. 
1122 98 William Wareham, 
1138 99 Thomas Cranmer, 
1162 100 Reginald Pole, 
1174 101 Matthew Parker, 
1184 102 Ed. Grindall, Dec. 
1191 103 John Whitgift, 
1193 104 Richard Bancroft, 
1207 105 George Abbott, 
1229 106 William Laud, 
1234 107 William Juxon, 
1245 108 Gilbert Sheldon, 
1272 109 William Sancroft, 
1278 110 John Tillotson, 
1294 111 Thomas Tennison, 
1313 112 William Wake, 
1328 113 John Potter, 
1333 114 Thomas Seeker, 

1348 115 Thomas Herring, 

1349 116 Matthew Hutton, 
1366 117 Frederick Cornwallis," 
1368 118 John Moore, 
1374 119 From St John, is William 
1381 White, of Pennsylvania, Conse- 
1396 crated February 4th, 1787, by 
1414 ; John Moore, Archbishop of 



D. 


1501 


U 


1530 


u 


1533 


u 


1555 


u 


1559 


Cc 


1573 


u 


1583 


a 


1604 


u 


1611 


a 


1633 


f« 


1660 


c« 


1663 


a 


1677 


(c 


1691 


U 


1694 


u 


1715 


t< 


1737 


(• 


1738 


Li 


1747 


a 


1757 


S" 


1768 


U 


1783 



1443 
1452 
1454 
1486 



Canterbury, assisted by the Arch- 
bishop of York, the Bishop of 
Bath and Wells, and the Bishop 
of Peterborough. 



But let the reader note that there are not only several lines, but 
each line is a three-fold cord. Each of the above named Successors, 
had three or more Consecrators, so that if any doubt could be raised 
as to any one of them, there are two or three others to continue the 
chain; indeed, as before remarked, many more in most cases. It 
has very rarely happened that the Succession depended upon three 
or four Bishops ; and then only in one branch of the Church — for 
as before remarked, the Succession descends in various, distinct, 
and independent lines — in America, England, Russia, Greece, &c, 
&c. In the line given in the above list, it has happened, I believe, 
but two or three times — and yet, in neither, of those few instances, 
can it proved, that a single man had not been truly Consecrated. 
One of those instances occurred at the first Consecration in this 
country. Let us contemplate it a moment, and we shall see that 
even the weakest part of this chain, is svperbundantly strong. 
The first Clergyman Consecrated in this country was Bishop 
Cleggett, He had four Consecrators, viz : Provost, Seabury, 
White and Madison. If it could be proved that three of these had 



67 

or been Consecrated, the remaining one would have conveyed 
the Succession. But, as I before remarked, it cannot be proved that 
even one of them was not Consecrated ; and if we follow the four- 
fold cord backwards, the strands multiply at every step, until they 
become almost innumerable. In the Consecration of these four, 
nine other Bishops were concerned, whose names I omit for the 
sake of brevity ;) and in the Consecration of these nine, twenty-two 
were concerned — thus they increase in almost three-fold proportion 
As there were nine at the second link, there were eight more than 
were necessary to continue the Succession ; and at the third link, 
since there were twenty-two, there were twenty-one more than ne- 
cessary. But this is hardly a full representation of the rate of in- 
crease. If I were to go back further, which I might easily do, as 
the names and dates are now before me, I think it would appear that 
the average increase is fully three-fold ; for sometimes five individu- 
als have united in a Consecration, and never less than three. But 
even at a two-fold increase, the lines multiply amazingly. This 
may be illustrated in the following manner : Let A repres-ent the first 
Bishop Consecrated in this country, and the numbers below, the 
Consecrators. Then the final numbers on the right hand of each line, 
will denote the aggregate of those concerned in A's Consecration, 
at each step : 

A 
12 34 
5 67 8 9 10 11 12 
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 
C 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
I 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 

Thus, at the first step, there were four ; at the second, twelve ; at 
the third, twenty-eight, and at the fourth, sixty. Thus, by the time 
we reach the fourth step, we find that sixty Bishops have been instru- 
mental in conveying the Succession down to the first Bishop Conse- 
crated in this country, by the lowest calculation. How utterly im- 
possible, then, that there could have been such a break as to destroy 
the whole ! If men will not believe with such securities, I see not 
how they can believe anything of a historical nature. 

But it is often objected, that many of these Bishops were wicked 
men. It is easy to refute that objection. Was not Balaam a wicked 
man? — and yet he was a true Prophet. Was not David guilty of 
murder and adultery ? — yet, though punished for these offences, he 
was still allowed to wield the sceptre of a Kingdom under God's di- 
rect and special control, and ultimately to deliver it into the 
hands of his son Solomon. David and Solomon were both 
wicked men ; and yet their compositions form a portion of the Inspi- 
red Canon. Were not many of the High Priests wicked men I — 
and did they not often obtain the office by Simony ? Yet they trans- 
mitted the Succession of the Levitical Priesthood to the days of the 
Saviour. Once more : Was not Judas a wicked man I — and yet he 
was a duly and fully commissioned Apostle. Like the other Apes- 






ties, he Preached the Gospel, performed Miracles, and did other 
things as a Minister of Christ — nor was his place supplied until hi& 
death. If, then, such a man filled the office, and performed the func- 
tions of an Apostle, even in the days of the Saviour, surely the same 
could have been done in any subsequent Age. It was not piety that 
authorized these men to act as Apostles — it was the Commission, or 
Ordination, of the Saviour : so, ever since, it is the Commission that 
empowers a man to act in Christ's stead, as an officer of his Church. 
If piety made a man a Minister, then every pious man would be one — 
every pious man could administer the Sacraments. But this is not al- 
lowed by any Denomination. Of course, no man should be admitted to 
the Sacred Office without piety ; but as soon as he is validly Ordain- 
ed, he is a true Minister of the Church — just as Judas was a true 
Apostle — and must remain so, until he is deposed. Whatever he 
does by virtue of his Ordination, whether he administers the Sacra- 
ments, or confers Orders, it is perfectly valid. The contrary cannot 
be maintained without contradicting Scripture facts, and involving 
ourselves, as Christians, in the greatest dilemma. For if no man is 
a true Minister unless he is pious, then it is impossible to tell with 
certainty who is one. The Minister may think himself pious, when 
he is not — or he may even pretend to be, when he knows he is not : 
And since Christians cannot read the hearts of their Pastor, they 
can have no certainty that he is pious ; and consequently, no cer- 
tainty that he is a Minister, although listening to his teachings, and 
receiving the Sacraments at his hands — at least they think so — for, if 
it all depends upon the reality of their Pastor's piety, they do not 
know whether they have been Baptised or not. And thus the 
Christian would be in a state of continual and utter uncertainty re- 
specting these most important questions — whether his Pastor is a valid 
Minister, and whether he has truly partaken of the Sacraments. But 
the case of Judas, alone, utterly destroys the force of that objection,, 
for it is recorded that he was " a thief," while an Apostle. And the 
case of Peter, also, I may add : Did he not deny his Master ? — was- 
he not guilty of repeated falsehoods and oaths ? — and yet he remain- 
ed an Apostle, and a most distinguished Apostle, to the day of his 
death. He, together with the other Apostles, conferred the Aposto- 
lical authority upon Matthias, and others. 



69 



CHAPTER VIII. 

No Succession Except through Episcopal Bishops — Episcopal 
Claims not Arrogant — No Case of Presbyterian Ordination 
from the Apostles to the Reformation — In what Sense our Bi- 
shops are Successors of the Apostles — Dissenting Preachers 
Claim the Same Powers — An External Commission Necessary 
— The Plea of Success Examined — Internal Persuasion no 
Proof to the People. 

The reader has seen that the Principle of Succession is sometimes 
advocated by non-Episcopalians, also : and indeed, it is acted upon 
by most of them, since it is implied by the very practice of Ordina- 
tion, which prevails among them also. For what is Ordination, but 
a transmission of Ministerial authotity ? But in order that a man 
may transmit such authority, he must have previously received it 
himself— and this implies Succession. Thus, they agree with us in 
theory. Those who maintain the principle — who claim the Succes- 
sion—differ from us, however,in one important particular. They be- 
lieve that the Apostles committed this authority originally to the Presby- 
ters, and that, though for many centuries none exercised it but those call- 
ed Bishops, yet that it belongs to the Presbyters ; and that, therefore, 
they can exercise it. But there is not in the New Testament a sin- 
gle case of Ordination by a mere Presbyter. I have proved, I trust, 
that this authority was committed to a class of men who were over 
the Presbyters. But even if it could be shown that Presbyters pos- 
sessed this authority, originally, it would avail nothing — they are 
•still without the Succession, for this reason: They admit that in the 
second or third century, this authority was committed only to a few 
of those Presebyters called Bishops; and consequently, when the 
original Presbyters had all died, the Ordaining power concentrated 
in these few, and they only could transmit it. And since they did 
not confer it upon those who retained the name of Presbyters, it be- 
came their exclusive prerogative — henceforth, they were the only 
original Presbyters, and therefore the only officers who possessed 
the authority ; and consequently, the only persons who could possi- 
bly confer it. And thus, according to their own theory, at the time 
of the Reformation, the only genuine Presbyters were those called 
Bishops ; and as neither Luther nor Calvin belonged to that class, 
they were destitute of this authority, and therefore could not transmit 
it to their present followers : and Wesley and his followers are in 
the same predicament, as those called Bishops in his day, were like- 
wise the only genuine and original Presbyters. For these reasons it 
is evident, that whether the three Orders be in the New Testament 
or not, Episcopal Bishops are the sole possessers of the Ordaining 
Authority. 

But these claims are denounced as u arrogant." That depends 
upon their truth. Every one knows that only the Bishops exercised 



70 

this authority at the time of the Reformation, and for centuries be- 
fore ; and if any man sets up a rival claim, surely he is bound to 
prove his title to it. And there is no clear case of Presbyterian Or- 
dination in the New Testament, and none allowed by the Church to 
be valid, down to the time of the Reformation. Our opposers have 
diligently searched the New Testament, and the records of History, 
in vain for such a case : and at the same time, we can produce from 
History positive proof that the Early Church considered such Or- 
dination a nullity. In the fourth century, a Presbyter named Colluthus 
pretended to Ordain Ischirus, to the same office ; but the Synod of Alex- 
andria declared the Ordination null and void. (Apud. Athanas. Apalog.. 
2 Epist. Presb. etDiacon. Mareotic. ad Curiosum etPhilagrium.) And 
when the blind Bishop of Agabra imposed his hands to confer Orders, 
while his Presbyters read the ivords^ the Ordination was pronounced 
invalid by the first Council of Sevil. (Cap 5.) Two or three more 
cases could be given. And surely nothing could prove more con- 
clusively that Presbyters have not the Ordaining authority, than these 
decisions of the Early Church. And if the Early Church repeatedly 
condemned Presbyterian Ordination, why should we be censured for 
doing likewise ? If the Primitive Church declared such Ordination 
null, and refused to allow those who claimed it to perform Ministe- 
rial functions, surely our Church has good authority for her regula- 
tions in this matter. She pretends not to interfere with those with- 
out her fold, but she is careful to preserve her own Communion from 
unlawful ministrations. And as I have shown, even now she is not 
alone in this respect — six-sevenths of Christendom are with her. 

But our Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, only as to 
their Ordinary powers — powers of Ordination and Superintendence. 
Their extraordinary, or miraculous powers, of course, they do not 
claim. I have already proved, I think, that there were in the Apos- 
tolic Age, other Apostles beside the Twelve — that Timothy and Titus 
tus were such, and consequently Successors of the original Twelve ; and 
yet there is no evidence that Timothy and Titus performed Miracles. 
But if they did possess the power of working" Miracles, it is obvious 
that it was not that power that constituted them Apostles — because 
that power was possessed by Stephen, (Aets, 6 : 8,) who was but a 
Deacon, and, indeed, most probably by some of the laity. Our Bi- 
shops are the Successors of the Apostles, in the sense in which Ti- 
mothy and Titus were — the inheritors of all the ordinary, peculiar, 
and permanent powers of the Apostolic office. 

Our opponents, having found it impossible to disprove the Succes- 
sion, attempt to render it odious, by representing it as conferring 
enormous and dangerous powers. Were the powers of the Apostles, 
then, dangerous ? Did our Lord invest them with prerogatives which 
are " destructive of liberty ?" Here is another instance in which, 
instead of wounding us, they wound the holy Religion which they 
profess. And after all their out-cry against these powers, they claim 
the very same for themselves ! Yes, they claim just as much autho- 
rity and power as Episcopal Bishops, and some of them even more ! 



71 

What powers does our Ministry derive from the Succession ? Only 
those assigned to the Ministry in Scripture — Preaching, Ordination, 
Discipline, and administration of the Sacraments. Do not the Prea- 
chers of all Denominations claim, and pretend to exercise all these? 
Every one knows they do. The Succession constitutes us Ministers 
of Christ; and they believe and profess themselves the same. So 
far, then, as pretensions to authority are concerned, there is no dif- 
ference between us — the only difference is in the title. The only 
proof they can give to sustain their pretensions, is the fallible per- 
suasion of their own minds. Our proof is the Commission, derived 
by regular Succession, from the inspired Apostles. This is the 
difference between us, on this point. 

We believe, of course, that a man should be prompted to under- 
take this responsible office by the Divine Spirit; but we maintain 
that, besides that, he must have an external commission before he 
can be a true Minister of the Church.* And have we not authority 
in Scripture for this ? What does St. Paul say? " No man taketh 
this office unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." 
Aaron was externally appointed — was "consecrated," by Moses — 
who had received authority from God. And all the Priests were 
similarly set apart by God's express injunction, before they Minis 
tered to the People. " No man taketh this office unto himself," 
says Scripture. No ; the office must be given to him, in a visible 
manner, by those who have authority. This is the ordinary way of 
God's appointment. There is but one other way — by " direct, or 
miraculous appointment" of God — such as St. Paul received. 
These two, are the only modes of receiving the Ministerial Com- 
mission mentioned in the Bible. The eleven Apostles set apart 
Matthias — afterwards, they Ordained by imposition of hands, the 



* " Is it not being wise above what is written, to say, when God 
has called and given authority, there is no need of Ordination or au- 
thority from man ? I would just ask the objector — why, then, when 
God had called Barnabas and Paul to the work, did He command 
the Church to separate them to Him for that very work: and why 
did they, in obedience, feisty pray, and lay hands upon them?'* 
(Dr. Clarke's Comment. Acts, 13: 3.) 

Dr. Clarke was unfortunately in a false position, and consequently 
his conduct was at variance with his opinions. 

Not long before his death, he made the following statements : 4i / 
reverence the Liturgy next to the Bible" " But I Preach, and 
have long Preached, without any kind of Episcopal Orders. My 
family fell into decay, and my education was left imperfect. I would 
greatly have preferred the hands of the Bishop, but not having 
gone through the regular courses, I could not claim it. Even 
now. at this age of comparative decrepitude, I would rejoice 
have that Ordination, if I might, with it, have the full liberty 
Preach Jesus, wherever I could iind souls perishing for the lack of 
knowledge." (See Christian Guardian, Dec. lb: 



72 

seven Deacons, and then " Elders in every city." Timothy and 
Titus Ordained others in the same manner ; and it cannot be proved 
that any man in the days of the Apostles performed the Ministerial 
functions, unless he was first set apart in this way by the Apostles, 
or miraculously appointed, as St. Paul. It cannot be proved from 
the New Testament, that any man was allowed to perform these 
functions, in consequence of merely an internal persuasion — conse- 
quently, Scripture gives no sanction to the pretensions of those 
Preachers who can give no proof but an inward call. And therefore, 
unless they receive the Commission in the ordinary way — by external 
appointment received from those who are authorised — they are com- 
pelled to prove their claims, as Moses did — by Miracles. But they say 
that they do work Miracles ; they convert sinners from the error of their 
ways. All this is very plausible — but unfortunately, it will not bear 
examination. In the first place, a man must prove his title before 
he enters upon an office. But how is it with them ? They enter 
upon the office before they give the proof! They Preach, Baptise, 
&c, before they can point to the Fruits which they call Miracles — 
which is exercising the Office before they have proved their title ! 
They pretend to be sent by God to proclaim Pardon and Salvation to 
a rebellious race. And, of course, it is requisite that they show their 
warrant before they proceed to declare the piunciples and condi- 
tions of reconcilation. This consideration alone shows the utter 
insufficiency of an appeal to fruits. But again: These Conversions 
are not Miracles. If it be said, they are beyond the power of man, 
they are certainly performed by the Power of God ; ^e grant it, 
and still deny that they are Miracles. Is not vegetation performed 
by the Power of God ? And yet, who would think of calling it a 
Miracle? Are not all the operations of Nature performed by the 
Power of God? And yet, who would call them Miracles? A 
Miracle is a deviation from the usual course of Divine Providence, 
effected by visible agency, naturally inadequate. Is the conversion 
of a sinner such? No. That cannot be a deviation from the usual 
course whichis occurring every day. Is it effected by such an agency? 
No. It is effected when genuine, not by the Preacher, but by the 
" Word of God, which is the Sword of the Spirit." Hence, says 
St, James, " Receive with meekness the engrafted word which is 
able to save your Souls." But it is said, " If these men were not 
duly commissioned, surely God would not render his word effectual 
when Preached by them." But this assumes that God would work 
a Miracle to testify that these men are not acting agreeably to his 
arrangement. For as Scripture teaches, and all Christians believe, 
the word of God is designed, and adapted to convert souls — in other 
words, that it is the fixed order of his Providence, that the word 
shall convert and save when it falls into good and honest hearts : 
consequently, if this effect were not to follow, it would be a devia- 
tion from the established course of things ; and therefore, a Miracle. 
And is it not utterly unreasonable to expect God to interfere 
miraculously to express his disapprobation ? Does he thus interfere 



73 

to vindicate his other arrangements and laws ? He does not inter- 
fere, even when men claiming to be his Ministers, preach the most 
destructive heresies. At the beginning, God did interpose in one or 
two instances. When Korah and others endeavored to intrude into 
the Prieshood, (Numbers 16th chapter) u the earth opened her 
mouth and swallowed them up." This was necessary, and at the 
same time sufficient, to indicate His will upon this subject for the 
instruction of all subsequent times. He did not afterwards inter- 
pose for this purpose. Even when the High Priest obtained the 
Office by Simony, there was no special interposition to express 
Divine displeasure. At first, the Jews were under an extraordinary 
Providence, but this (its object having been accomplished) was 
gradually withdrawn. And Christians too, at first, were somewhat 
similarly situated. Ananias and Sapphira, were visited with death 
for falsehood. BuUhis does not now occur. St. Paul, speaking of 
the miraculous punishments inflicted upon the Jews, says : u They 
are written/or our admonition.'* We have no more right to expect 
God to interpose now, as He did in the case of Korah, than we have 
to expect Him to interpose as he did in the case of Ananias and 
Sapphira. Again: The Apostles professed to be appointed to the 
Ministerial Office in an extraordinary way. Consequently, they had 
to establish their pretensions by Miracles. But what were those 
Miracles ? They did not merely " convert sinners from the error of 
their way" — but over and above that, they " spake with other 
tongues" — they healed the sick and raised the dead by a touch or 
word. These were the Miracles by which they proved themselves 
authorised to dispense with an external appointment by human 
agency, such as prevailed among the Jews in their day. These 
Miracles were then necessary to attest the Divine Origin of a new 
Order of Ministry. But afterwards, these Ministers committed the 
same authority to others, (as we have seen in the case of Timothy 
and Titus) and they to others, and thus the office descended in an 
ordinary way, as it latterly did among the Jews — that is, by a re- 
gular Succession from one generation of Ministers to another. The 
Divine Authority of the Christian Ministry, having been at first 
established by Miracles, Miracles were no longer needed, but only 
the Succession from those who had received it. And hence, when 
men claim to be sent by a direct call from God, and set at nought 
the ordinary way of obtaining Ministerial authority, then they are 
obviously bound to prove by Miracles, their extraordinary appoint- 
ment. Let them do Mis, and we will relinquish our " exclusive- 
ness." Let them do this, and we will at once acknowledge the 
validity of their ministrations. But until they do this, we cannot 
abandon our position, that they should enter the Ministry as we have 
done — by the ordinary door. But is this exclusive ? If it be so, it 
is not our fault. Our Church would gladly give this commission to 
all suitable persons. And if they voluntarily reject a Ministry which 
they admit to be valid, and which six-sevenths of Christendom deem 
necessary, is it not unkind to throw the blame on us ? 



74 

The reader will notice that the remarks made above, overthrow 
the plea of success. First : Since this success is not exhibited until 
after their entrance upon the office, it cannot answer as proof- — 
because the proof should he furnished before they can consistently 
perform the least function of the Ministry. Second: This success is 
not their success — it is the success of God's word, which He has 
said "shall not return unto Him void" — and which is often blessed 
when simply read to others, by persons making no pretensions to the 
Ministerial character. There are other considerations which are 
equally opposed to it. The labors of wicked men are often crowned 
with suceess. It is but a few months since a striking instance of 
this was published in our secular papers. A Preacher entered a 
certain village of this State, proclaimed the Gospel in an earnest and 
popular manner, produced a "revival," and "converted sinners 
from the error of their way." But before he had been there twelve 
months, it was discovered that he had all the while been living in the 
most enormous guilt. Again: What does Dr. Nevius, (a German 
Reformed Preacher) say of some of the most successful revivalists ? 
" Often" says he: u he is covetous; often vain, often without a 
particle of humility or meekness."* If, then, success does not 
even prove that a man is pious, surely it cannot prove that he is va- 
lidly commissioned. Again : In the Methodist System, a man Prea- 
ches two years before they pretend to Ordain him. And during 



* " The Anxious Bench," p. 25 — a Pamphlet, which ably exposes 
the evils of the measures of modern invention. 

Episcopalians are sometimes represented as being opposed to 
u revivals," If they mean by that term, an increase and diffusion of 
genuine religion, we are not opposed to them ; but seek to promote 
them. But if they include in that term, mourners' benches, &c. &c. 
we are opposed to them. We believe that they produce much 
mischief, and that the good which attends them, could be attained by 
less objectionable means. In a report brought into a late meeting of 
the General Assembly, (Old School, I believe) the author stated that 
he had ascertained by a careful examination of statistics, that "one 
half" of those persons converted'by revivals, were subsequently ex- 
pelled from the Communion. I am glad to find that Dr. Nevins' 
work has been favorably noticed by a writer in the Presbyterian Ad- 
vocate, who says : " Never was a publication more loudly called for 
by the tendency of the times * * * when the Religion of a whole 
year is crowded into a few weeks of strong excitement, instead of 
showing itself in the prayers of the sanctuary, the faith and good 
works of the daily walk, and the faithful discharge of all the 
personal and relative duties of life. * * * We are in danger of being 
carried away by a tumultuous whirlwind of religious passion, in 
which it is to be feared there is but little ofthe genuine spirit of the 
Gospel, and it is high time to arrest it. There is a rock mid-way 
between the cold waters of a lifeless orthodoxy and the wild fire of 
fanaticism, where we may safely plant our feet." 



75 

these two vears his labors are crowned with as much success, as 
afterwards. This fact conclusively proves that success in no evidence 
of valid Ordination. If success proves any thing — it proves too 
much, at least too much for the Methodists : it proves that no Ordi- 
nation is necessary. And if so, why do they pretend to Ordain ; and 
that too, with the borrowed Offices of our Church? But the position 
that Ordination is unnecessary, is contrary to Scripture. For we are 
told that the Apostles " Ordained Elders in every city" — that Titus 
was commissioned to do the same in the Island of Crete. And as I 
before said, it cannot be proved that a single individual was allowed in 
the days of the Apostles to perform the functions of the Ministry 
without Ordination. Besides, that position is contradicted by the 
judgment and practice of the Church, from the primitive times to the 
present. Those who are destitute of Ordination, and deny its neces- 
sity, rely solely upon an inward call or persuasion. That a man 
should have this I grant, but maintain that that alone, does not suffice ; 
for this further reason, that it is no proof to others. It may be 
imaginary, and it may be counterfeited. And if true — no one knows 
it but the Preacher himself — consequently, it gives no assurance to 
others, however satisfactory it may be to him. The People are 
not bound to receive men as the Ambassadors of Christ, upon such 
a pretence. Indeed, it is most unreasonable to expect them to do so. 
It has proved the prolific source of Fanaticism, Delusion and Impos- 
ture. This was the plea of Mahomet. This was the plea of 
Munster and Geo. Fox and their followers, who if permitted would have 
overthrown society. The Quakers of the present day are a virtuous and 
orderly people, yet such is their plea, while rejecting the Sacra- 
ments. Does God call one man to Preach the Sacraments, and an- 
other to reject them ? Again : This same plea is set up by Joseph 
Smith, the Mormon Prophet. And how often do females imagine 
that they are called to Preach, notwithstanding St. Paul says, " I suf- 
fer not a woman to teach;" (1 Tim. 2 : 12,) and again : " Let your 
women keep silence in the Churches, for it is not permitted unto 
them to speak ;" (1 Cor. 14 : 34.) These instances, which it would 
be easy to increase, are not adduced to prove that there is no inward 
call, but to prove the insufficiency of such plea alone — to prove that 
something more is necessary to preserve the people from continual 
imposition, and to prevent Religion from being brought into contempt. 
And what is that something, but the Apostolic Commission, which 
Christ has lodged in his Church I I freely admit that there are 
many excellent Preachers, relying upon this plea, who are entirely 
free from such delusions as these mentioned ; but does it not behoove 
both them and their people to consider seriously, whether, in refu- 
sing a regular, external Commission, they are not sanctioning and 
encouraging those fanatics who act upon the same plea ? As long as 
it is granted that such a plea is sufficient, heresies and divisions must 
continue to multiply. I know that Apostolic Succession would not 
remedy them entirely, but it would undoubtedly check and diminish 
them. They have existed, in some degree, in every Age, but never 
in such abundance as at present. 



76 



CHAPTER IX. 

Fruits of the Succession — Prosperity of the English Church — 
Progress of the American Church — Assaults of Dissenters upon 
the Church — Conversions to the Church from various Denomina- 
tions. 

Mr. A. asks for the Fruits of the Succession. It is easy to give 
them. It was in connexion with this principle, that the Blessed 
Gospel was carried to almost every part of the world a thousand 
years before Methodism was heard of. It numbers among its adhe- 
rents six-sevenths of Christendom, to which the Methodists are but 
u a drop in the bucket." But if something more definite be demand- 
ed, let the Church of England be compared with other Protestant 
Communities. Mr. A. has thrown out some very unjust insinuations 
against that Church. He says : " Nor was the English Church half 
reformed down to the time of Mr. Wesley."* From a period long 
before Wesley lived, to the present moment, the Doctrines and Prin- 
ciples of that Church have been exactly the same ; and here Mr. 
Wesley himself shall testify to its Orthodoxy. " The Religion of 
the Church of England is Methodism ; as appears from all her au- 
thentic records, from the uniform tenor of her Liturgy, and from 
numberless passages in her Homilies. This Scriptural, Primitive 
Religion is to be found in her Morning and Evening Service, and in 
her daily, as well as occasional Prayers." (Sermon 65.) Again : 
Mr. A. makes Wesley call the Bishops, " mitred Infidels." Is it 
just to circulate such grievous charges against Christian Ministers, 
without a single proof to sustain them ? Is this evidence of supe- 
rior piety ? Wesley's opinion, whatever it was, must be received 
with some caution. His irregularies rendered him obnoxious to the 



* Let this be compared with what Dr. Adam Clarke says of the 
English Church : u I was born, so to speak, in the Church ; Bapti- 
sed in the Church ; brought up in it ; Confirmed in it, by that most 
Apostolic man, Dr. Bagot, then Bishop of Bristol, afterward of Nor- 
wich ; have held all my life uninterrupted Communion with it ; 
conscientiously believe its Doctrines, and have spoken and written 
in defence of it" " Being bred up in its bosom, I early drank 
in its salutary Doctrines and Spirit" (Life of A. Clarke, vol. 3, 
pp. 110, 111. Published at the " Conference Office," N. Y.) 

In the same letter, the Doctor states that it was not his own fault 
that he was " without those most respectable Orders" conferred by 
the Church — that it was owing to the narrow circumstances of his 
father, which prevented him from receiving the requisite education. 
Let our Methodist brethren note the contrast between Dr. Clarke's 
views of the Church and its Orders, and those of their present Prea- 
chers. The letter from which these extracts are taken, was written 
as late as 1829, and only three years before his death. 



77 

Bishops, and therefore he was hardly qualified to judge without pre- 
judice. No class of men, in modern times, have done so much ta 
maintain the truth of Christianity, as the Bishops of the English 
Church. How different is the Testimony of that distinguished 
Presbyterian Preacher, Mr. Albert Barnes. Says he : " While men 
have elevated Christian feelings ; while they revere sound learning ; 
while they render tribute to clear and profound reasoning, they will 
not forget the names of Barrow and Taylor, of Tillitson * * * and 
Butler ; and when they think of humble, pure, sweet and Heavenly 
piety, their minds will recur instinctively to the name of Leigh ton. 
Such names, with a host of others, do honor to the world." (Epis- 
copacy Examined.) All these were Bishops.* 

Again : Mr. A. says of the Church of England, " The progress 
isnow backward, instead of forward." In this he is directly con- 
tradicted by the statements of the most distinguished Methodist of 
the day, Dr. Durbin. In a letter which he wrote while in Europe, 
and which was published in the " National Intelligencer," (Washing- 
ton,) he says : " The Church of England, I regarded before I left 
home, as the Bulwark of Protestantism in Europe; I still so regard 
z7,and consider it the best possible model of a Church and State. I do not 
say that the Dissenters and Methodists have declined absolutely in num- 
bers, activity, or piety ; but I say the Church has gained vastly more 
than they , relatively, during the last ten years: so much so, that as a 
candid man, I believe she would nearly neutralize their influence 
in the course of half a century, if she continues to increase in ac- 
tivity AND PIETY AS SHE HAS DONE FOR THE LAST TEN OR FIFTEEN 

years." This letter was written about a year ago, and after he had 
visited England and inspected its condition for himself, and a year or 
two after the Oxford Tracts ceased to be issued. Let the reader note 
that Dr. Durbin states that the Church of England has increased in 
activity and piety — "vastly more" than the u Dissenters and 
Methodists!" Is this " progress backward ?" Does he ask now 
for the "Fruits of the Succession'?" Again: Let the reader note 
that Dr. Durbin "still regards the Church of England as the 
bulwark of Protestantism in Europe J" Here are the Fruits of the 
Succession. A Succession Church is admitted by our opposers to 
be the " bulwark of Protestanism in Europe." How different is this 
from the great outcry which has lately been raised against that Church 
with regard to Puseyism. After such Testimony, it is unnecessary 
to say much respecting the condition of Protestant Sects. I would 

* The celebrated Dr. Chalmers, of Scotland, says of the Church 
of England : " But to that Church, the Theological Literature of our 
Nation stands indebted for her best acquisitions." " Nor can 
we grudge her the wealth of her endowments, when we think how 
well, under her venerable auspices, the battles of Orthodoxy have 
been fought ; that, in this Holy warfare, they are her sons and her 
scholars, who are ever foremost in the field." (Quarterly Review, 
Dec. 1832.) 



78 

only remind the reader that while the Faith of the Church of England 
has remained unchanged, many of those Sects in England, and on 
the Continent, have fallen into Arianism and Rationalism — and that 
while the Church has continued united, those Sects especially, the 
Methodists, have been dividing and sub-dividing, until they have 
become innumerable. And let the Episcopal Church in this country 
be compared with the Denominations around her— and we shall see 
another proof that God's blessing rests upon the Succession in an 
extraordinary manner. While the Episcopal Church has remained 
united from the beginning — the various Denominations have been 
rent asunder again and again. The four leading Denominations are 
divided into the following distinct organizations : 



PRESBYTERIANS. 

Old-School Presbyterians, 
New-School Presbyterians, 
Cumberland Presbyterians, 
Associate Presbyterians, 
Dutch -Reformed Presbyterians, 
Reformed Presbyterians. 

CONGREGATIONALISTS. 

Orthodox Congregationalists, 
Unitarian Congregationalists, 
Transcendental Congregationalists, 
Universal Congregationalists. 



BAPTISTS. 

Calvinistic Baptists, 
Free-Will Baptists, 
Free-Communion Baptists, 
Seventh-Day Baptists, 
Six-Principle Baptists, 
Emancipation Baptists, 
Campbellite Baptists. 

METHODISTS. 
Methodist Episcopal, 
Protestant Methodists, 
Primitive Methodists, 
Wesleyan Methodists, 
Associate Methodists. 

Now let the judgment of Scripture, with regard to Divisions, be re 
membered. In the sublime address which the Redeemer made to the 
Father, just before his Crucifixion, he requested as many as three 
distinct times, that His Disciples might be one ; " that the world may 
know that thou hast sent me." (John 17 chap.) And St. Paul said : 
u Mark them which cause divisions, and avoid them." (Rom. 16, 
17.) When these and other passages are considered, I cannot but 
regard unity as indicative of God's special favor. Success in gather- 
ing numbers is a poor criterion to judge by. But we are willing to 
appeal to it, if demanded. It is true, that in this or that particular 
place, the progress of the Church is slow, on account of some un- 
favorable circumstance. But throughout the country, its present 
progress is more rapid, I believe, than that of any Denomination. The 
number of our Clergy has more than doubled during the last ten years ; 
and the number of Lay-Members has increased in the same propor- 
tion. But to ask why the Church does not do more, is to take the 
ground of the Infidel. He argues in the same way respecting Chris- 
tianity. If it be the only true Religion, says he, why, has it not long 
ago covered the whole earth ? This at once shows the fallacy of 
such arguments. To expect the Gospel in its purity and com- 
pleteness (that is, embracing the Church) to be every where instantly 
received, is to assume that men are always ready to accept and obey the 
truth — which is contrary to Scripture and experience. Did not the 



79 

Saviour and his Apostles prove unsuccessful in various places ? Did 
not St. Paul predict: t4 The time will come, when they (professing 
Christians) will not endure sound doctrine : but heap to themselves 
Teachers, having itching ears." Was there ever a greater variety 
of lC Teachers" than now ? Was there ever greater " itching" after 
novelties in Religion? And did not the same Apostle declare to the 
Presbyters, ''also of your own selves, shall men arise, speaking 
perverse things, to draw away Disciples after them?" How exact- 
ly does this suit the case of Dr. Coke. Surely such passages as 
these (and there are many similar ones) should induce every one 
who has a'sincere regard for God's Word, to be exceedingly cautious 
in following men. Far be it from me to pass sentence upon my fellow 
Christians of other Communions with regard to their piety, and ulti- 
mate Salvation. To their own Master, they stand or fall. But these 
admonitions of Scripture, taken in connection with the fact that Sects, 
and Heresies are so rapidly multiplying, should induce us all to 
watch, pray and reflect. We all have one common "foundation — 
Jesus Christ;" but we are to take heed, lest we "build thereon 
wood, hay and stubble," 

But some of those around us, while demanding, in the language of 
the impatient Jews, " let him make haste that we may see it," are 
at the same time using almost every sort of means to obstruct the 
progress of the Church. We do not object to a candid examination 
or discussion of our claims — we desire it. But we think we have a 
right to complain, when, instead of sound argument, exciting appeals 
are made to the prejudices and passions of the multitude — when our 
principles are misrepresented, and affirmed to be opposed to "liberty," 
" equality," &c. &c. Such means would not be resorted to, were 
there not an utter want of sound argument. And though they may 
succeed in frightening away a few timid, half-hearted and temporis- 
ing members, and in keeping aloof those who will not take the 
pains to examine "whether these things be so," yet in the end 
they will only contribute to our increase, both in strength and 
numbers. 

The intelligent, candid, independent and thoughtful, will sooner or 
later investigate for themselves, and the triumph of Church princi- 
ples is inevitable. Mr. A. and others are aware of this, and hence 
the attempt to stifle discussion by branding it as " persecution" (!) 
and to excite prejudice by the silly clamor about '• liberty" and 
" equality !" These means were used in England for a long time, 
and with some success, but a re-action is now rapidly taking place, 
as Durbin testifies. The Church is proving herself the Church of 
the poor, as well as the rich. 

By the efforts of Churchmen, a bill was recently introduced into 
Parliament — providing for the establishment of Schools throughout 
the whole country. But it was defeated by the opposition of Dis- 
senters ! But the Churchmen of England are determined not to he 
baffled in the benevolent and noble enterprise. They have contri- 
buted for the purpose, nearly one million of dollars out of their own 



80 

private funds ! Let the reader remember that that is a " Succession 1 * 
Church, and that though united with the State, and possesing an im- 
mense majority, yet every Sect enjoys the most perfect toleration. 

An attempt is now made to represent Churchmen as the aggres- 
sors. Therefore, it may be well to show in what manner we are 
assailed by those who boast of superior piety and charity. The 
''New York Evangelist," (organ of the New School Presbyterians,) 
not long since published the following sentiment respecting Episco- 
pacy, which our opponents now call u Prelacy.' 1 " It has every 
where been a poisonous tree, infecting the atmosphere in which it 
flourished." " It has poured the miasma of death." " There is 
no safety but in the downfall of Prelacy, and the Churches of this 
land ought never to rest until it is effected." (N. Y. Evang. Dec. 
1, 1842.) How beautifully this accords with Dr. Durbin's statement, 
that the Episcopal Church is the u bulwark of Protestantism in Eu- 
rope" ! How beautifully it accords with the following Testimony 
from a Presbyterian Divine before quoted, Mr. Barnes : " Nor can 
we forget," says he, u that we owe to Episcopacy that which fills 
our minds with gratitude and praise, when we look for examples of 
Consecrated talent, and elegant literature, and humble, devoted piety." 
" We have never doubted that many of the purest flames of devotion 
that rise from the earth, ascend from the Altars of the Episcopal 
Church ; and that many of the purest spirits that the Earth contains, 
minister at those Altars, or breathe forth their Prayers and Praises, 
in language Consecrated by the use of Piety for Centuries." (Epis- 
copacy Examined.) The same number of this " Evangelist" (?) ex- 
pressly declares that a the great point of contest, is the question of 
Prelacy." This clearly proves, what I have long suspected, that 
the cry of " Puseyism" is only a pretext. A subsequent number 
contains a violent tirade against us all, " High Church and Low," 
because we will not acknowledge the validity of their Orders, by 
permitting them to officiate in our Pulpits. It says : " Their 
Episcopacy and its Canons, which cause them to do so, are crimi- 
nal in the sight of God, and subject them, (i. e. Low-Churchmen,) 
at every turn, to the charge of hypocrisy." Such is the treatment 
which those Churchmen receive, who endeavor to conciliate, by in- 
dulging in those compliances which give them the epithet of "Low." 
Again : We find language but little better in the Methodist Christian 
Advocate. It says: " We consider the semi-Popery of Puseyism, as 
developed in the High Church Doctrines of a large portion of the 
Ministers of the Protestant Episcopal Church, as quite as inimical 
to Gospel Truth, and far more insiduous, than unqualified Ro- 
manism itself" " We appeal to our Sister Churches" &c. (Dec. 
14, 1842.) This same paper, as all our opposers, regard " Apostolic 
Succession" as the root and essence of u Pusyism." And since that 
is the Doctrine of the Church, the language quoted is directed 
against the Church. 

This paper has probably infused the same spirit and sentiment 
into Mr. A. He also makes an appeal to u Sister Churches." 



81 

"I call upon all of every Denomination, who cast away the Doctrine 
of High Church exclusiveness" &c. Let them " appeal." Let 
them combine, if they can. We fear not. "The Lord of Hosts is 
with us, the God of Jacob is our Refuge." 

I will give one more specimen of the warfare waged against us — 
taken from one of our Church Papers. U A miserable pamphlet has 
been privately printed and circulated in New Haven, Connecticut, 
without any imprint or printer's name, professing on the title-page 
to be written by a "Churchman," who on the first page of the 
pamphlet, says he is " member of the Episcopal Church." The 
Editor of Church Chronicle and Record, published in the same city, 
says : u We blush for our race while we write, that the author of the 
pamphlet is a Minister holding a high place among the Congre- 
gation'dists, and that the person who revised the proof and aided in 
its publication, is a Minister in high standing in the same Denomi- 
nation ; and we are sorry to be obliged to believe, that the re-publica- 
tion has been procured by a third person holding the same office, 
and also standing high among his brethren." 

Surely the sincere Christian of every name must u blush" too. 
Every honorable man must execrate such base and criminal ex- 
pedients.- But all these attacks are only accelerating the progress 
of the Church. They have led to inquiry, and inquiry has brought 
hundreds to the Church from all quarters. Both in England and in 
this country, Dessenters of every persuasion are seeking an Asylum 
from Sectarian Divisions and Errors, in the peaceful bosom of the 
Church.t I have already mentioned in a note the transfer to the 

* These violent and unchristian assaults upon the Church, are not 
confined to individuals. The following extracts from a " Pastoral 
LeVer" recently issued by the Presbyterian Synod of Michigan, 
contain a mixture of falsehood and bitterness, which are disgraceful 
to the Christian name : " We likewise exhort you not to be deceived 
with regard to the fatal tendency of those most palpable errors 
which have taken possession of even what is termed the Low 
Church portion of that mischievous establishment. Even that 
portion, in our estimation has, in connection with it, no little false 
theology, and exclusive Sectarianism, and Jesuitical Proselytism." 
" When they will come out, to labor side by side with Christians 
of other names, then and not until then will they cease to be objects 
of our decided rebuke and sleepless suspicions." The same 
" Letter" applies to the Church epithets and phrases, still more 
offensive — such as these—" Spirit of Anti-Christ — 4; Most ruinously 
heretical errors" and " Elements of Popery of highest caste." Let 
the reader observe that this attack is made, not by an individual 
Presbyterian, but by a Presbyterian Synod. 

t All eyes are now turned to the Church. A distinguished Uni- 
tarian lately wrote to one of our members, "Although not of your 
Communion, I look to it as the sheet anchor for the Religious in- 
6* 



82 

Church of England of a whole Congregation of Methodists — Preacher, 
People and house of worship. It is now becoming very common 
for Alethodists of the second and third generation to find their way 
back to the Church. The son of Dr. A. Clarke, is a Clergyman of 
the Church of England, and so, also, is the son of Dr. Hannah^ 
another distinguished Methodist. 

A late London Paper states that the Bishop of Chester, " has 
had during the last few months upwards of thirty applications from 
Dissenting Ministers for admission into Holy Orders." Mr, 
Edward Miall, a Preacher among the Independents, says: "The 
door of egress from our ranks is set wide open to the young, and 
they are leaving in crowds."* No wonder that Durbin states that 
the Church " has gained vastly more than the Dissenters relatively. " 
No wonder that the Wesleyan Statistics a year or two ago, exhibited 
a decrease. 

And in this country conversions to the Church from the various 
Denominations are no less numerous. Bishop De Lancey, in a note 
to a Sermon recently published, makes the following statements : 
" Bishop Griswold stated, in 1841, that of two hundred and eighty 
five persons Ordained by him, two hundred and seven of them 
came into the Ministry of the Episcopal Church from other De- 
nominations ; but what proportion of these had been Ministers, he 
did not state. From the most accurate investigation that can be 
made, I am led to believe that about three hundred Clergymen 
and Licentiates of other Denominations have, within the last 
thirty years, sought the Ministerial Commission from the hands of 
the Bishops of our Church; and that, of the present Clergy in the 
Church, at least two-thirds were not originally, by educa- 
tion, Episcopalians, but have come from other folds." 

I cannot forbear to insert here, an account of the conversion of 
one of these Ministers, written by himself — the late Rev. Samuel 
Fuller who was a Presbyterian Preacher for nineteen years. 

" After considerable reading both of the Holy Scriptures and other 
books, I became convinced that the Ordination which I had received 
was not Scriptural, and consequently was not valid. Under this 
conviction, I could no longer, consistently with a good conscience, 
presume to officiate in Holy things. There was no other alternative, 
but either to desist wholly from the Ministry, or to obtain that Ordi- 
nation which I viewed to be Scriptural and valid. The first and 
principal object I had in view in receiving Episcopal Ordination, was 
to obtain authority to officiate in Holy things. The next object, was 
to be connected with that Church whose Government view to be 
of Divine Institution. I believe that Christ has appointed officers in 
his Church, and pointed out the mode by which these officers are to 
be inducted into office, aud the mode in which his Church is to be 



struction of our country. There is now so much of Fanaticism on 
one side, and of Rationalism on the other, that there seems no so 
safe ground for the Religious Institutions as the Episcopal Church. 



83 

governed, and that no man nor body of men have a right to alter 
those regulations which Christ has appointed. If then, I was satisfied 
that the mode in which I was introduced into the Ministry was un- 
authorised, and the Church Government which I was building up 
was not the Government which Christ had appointed ; so long as I 
continued in this practice, I was using my influence to promote 
schism, and to rend the Church, which is the Body of Christ. 

" These things were agitated in my mind a number of years, but 
I never gave the subject a thorough investigation, till within about a 
year past. Whenever I took up the subject, the more I examined 
the more I was convinced that Presbyterian Ordination was built on 
a sandy foundation. I doubted, but still was not sure. Other oc- 
currences intervening would crowd off my mind from this. I went 
on in the old way. The less I attended to it, the more it would wear 
out of mind. It was a great thing to change. I w T as not certain. 
Other Ministers, whose Ordination was no better than mine, ap- 
peared f to have no difficulty. Then some circumstance, perhaps, 
would call up the subject again. I would examine — and on every 
new examination, I uniformly found that the validity of Presbyterian 
Ordination appeared more doubtful. Any cause which would not 
bear the light, has always looked to me like a bad one — I found that 
there was no way to get along comfortably with Presbyterian Ordi- 
nation, but to put it into the dark and not look at it. 

" My trials the year past have been very great. The special atten- 
tion to Religion increased my Ministerial Labors, and multiplied 
occasions of officiating in the administration of Baptisms, and the 
admission of persons into covenant with the Church. In the per- 
formance of these Ministerial acts, I often doubted of my authority, 
and the propriety of those things which, as a professed Minister of 
Christ, I was performing. On every examination of the subject my 
doubts increased. I stated my difficulties to individual Ministers 
with whom I was the most intimate. The result of every conversa- 
tion with them was to strengthen me in the opinion that the Episco- 
pal Church alone retained that Ordination and Government which 
are Primitive and Apostolical. 

V The Cause of Christ above all other considerations is precious, 
and ought to outweigh every objection against promoting it. To 
live and die disconnected from the Apostolic Church, was not con- 
sistent with a good conscience. Whatever it may be to others, to 
me it would have been sin. I judge no man, but commit all judg- 
ment to Him who judgeth righteously. If others cannot see with 
me, they must stand or fall for themselves. But it is not candid to 
judge a cans'? without a hearing. Many People who undertake to 
judge in thesj matters are almost totally ignorant of the principles of 
Episcopacy. If any have said hard things against it, my Prayer to 
a merciful God is, that they may be forgiven. The prejudice of 
education is very strong. Few People think for themselves. Hu- 
man nature is the same in all classes of men. Mankind, as they 
love those who love them, censure those who differ from them in 



84 

sentiment. But all sentiments and practises are not equally good.. 
There is a right and a wrong in Religion as well as in other things,. 
But it is wrong to eondemn any Religious sentiment or practice 
without knowing what it is. Although the step which I have taken 
is followed with some disagreeable consequences, the great object is 
obtained. I am rrow relieved from distressing doubts about the 
validity of my Orders. I now enjoy the pleasing satisfaction of 
belonging to that visible Church whose Ministry and Sacraments, 
whose Doctrine and Worship, are according to the Institution of 
Christ. The few remaining days of my life I hope, Divine Grace 
assisting, to be instrumental in doing something to build up that 
Church which he earnestly prayed might be one, and in which the 
Apostles exhorted that there might be no divisions nor offences." 

After Mr. Fuller had obtained Episcopal Ordination, he settled at 
Rensselaerville, N. Y., where he founded a Parish, in which he 
labored with great success until his death, i. e., for thirty-one 
2"ears. Another of these Ministers lately sent the following interesting 
account of his conversion to the editor of the " Witness and Advo- 
cate," to whom he is well known : 

u The Subscriber, some fourteen years since, graduated in one of 
the New England Colleges. He was then a member of the Oithodox 
Congregational Denomination. Whilst an undergraduate, he became 
interested in the subject of Ecclesiastical polity, from hearing, about 
that time, of so many navel, and as he conceived, arbitrary proceed- 
ings in the Councils of that Body. One ease of unusual interest,. 
was the famous Lebanon Convention. 

44 Having read Slater's Draft of the Primitive Church, he became^ 
convinced, that if he wished to seek an Ecclesiastical Government, 
free from the interference of irresponsible individuals and Councils,, 
and withal, presenting the strongest claims to Apostolic authority 
and practice, he should find it only in the Protestant Episcopal 
Church. 

"He opened his mind to the President of the College. i / said 

he, ' I will hold up my both hands to your going into that Church — 
that Church (with emphasis) of the Scotts, and Newtons, and 
Richmonds, and Martyns.' I passed from the study of the President 
into his parlor, when his pious and excellent lady, having heard of 
my intentions, observed, " I am truly glad that you think of the 
Episcopal Church. I have long been an admirer of that Church,, 
and I am persuaded you will be far happier there than among the 
Congregationalists." 

" About the same time I had an interview with Professor r 

of the same institution, on the subject. 44 1 have been reading" said 
he, the 44 Life of Leign Richmond" There is something in the 
piety of Episcopalians so unaffected and unassuming ; so free from 
the cant of the age, that I am really quite in love with them, — and 
I will heartly add my concurrence with that of the President, in 
your choice." 

44 In the Archives of the Standing Committee of aur Diocese, or 



S-5 

Tather of this State, will be found a letter from each of these distin- 
guished individuals — the President and Professor — recommending 
me to the notice of the Episcopal authorities. They were noticed 
at the time, as our worthy Treasurer of the Convention perhaps will 
arocollect, as something remarkable. 

" The Subscriber has since Baptised three young gentlemen from 
the same Denomination. One of them, after Ordination, was, for a 
while, Editor of one of our Journals. The other two are Rectors of 
Parishes, and very successful; one of whom is Secretary of one of 
our New England State Conventions. Three of his collegiate 
friends also, who graduated in three. Classes preceding him, have 
■entered the Episcopal Church-, all of whom are actively employed." 

In consequence of these numerous conversions, we are sometimes 
accused of " Proselyting" — but as the above cases show, they 
" Proselyte" themselves by a deliberate and candid examination of 
our principles. Many of these Ministers were among the most 
useful and prominent in the Denominations which they left. 

According then to Dr. De Lancey's estimate, two-thirds of our 
Clergy, (that is 800) have come from other Denominations. What 
a powerful attestation of the Truth of Episcopacy*! I know there 
are a few fickle-minded persons who are always changing their 
Religion. But when hundreds of the most intelligent men flock 
from all quarters into the Church, it ought at least to awaken 
serious consideration and thorough examination. 

Of course, we freely admit that many intelligent and excellent 
men reject Episcopacy, and whose judgment, probably, has 
great weight with thousands. But do not intelligent and excel 
lent men reject other truths ? How many deny the Deity of the 
Saviour ? How many reject Infant Baptism ? Again : Have those 
men thoroughly and impartially examined Episcopacy ? Let the 
reader remember the case of Mr. Fuller. Some time since, I fell in 

company with a Preacher of some note in the Denomination, 

an aged man, and Pastor of a large and devoted Congregation. The 
conversation soon turned upon Apostolical Succession ; and almost 
the first remark that he made, was, that he considered it a " figment." 
However, we had not discussed the question long, before he candidly 
admitted that he had 4t not paid the subject much attention" (!) and 
assigned as the reason, that when he was a student, the subject was 
not much agitated. And yet, such men sway the judgment of thou- 
sands of persons ! It is now too late for such a man to investigate 
the subject. The circumstances by which he is surrounded, would 
be almost certain to influence his judgment. These facts show that 
it is the duty of every Christian f to examine for himself. The 
best are liable to err : therefore, we should take no man for our 
guide. 



86 



CHAPTER X. 

The Polity of the Church, Republican — Methodism, Despotic — 
Prescribed Forms of Prayer used by the Methodists — A Brief 
Statement of the Argument in their Favor — Episcopalians 
Unanimous with Regard to the " Succession''* — Circulation of 
the Scriptures — Clerical Garments — " Persecution' 7 of Wesley 
Explained — Conclusion. 

I have already intimated that Mr. A. has endeavored to represent 
our Church as opposad to " Liberty," " Equality," " Freedom of 
Opinion,"* &c. Let any one examine its Constitution and Canons, 
and he will at once see that the charge is utterly unfounded. Our 
Church is purely Republican in all its branches. It corresponds 
exactly with our Civil Government. The Church, in every State, 
has what is called a Diocesan Convention. This Convention is com- 
posed of those Clergymen who have charge of Parishes, and of an 

EQUAL NUMBER OF LAY REPRESENTATIVES, CHOSEN BY THE PARISHES. 

The Convention can make no regulations without the concurrence of 
the Lay-members. And even when a Bishop is to be chosen, a ma- 
jority of the Laity mist always concur. Again : In every Pa- 
rish, the Minister is chosen by the Laity : consequently, the People 
say who shall be their Bishop, their Priest, or their Deacon. Once 
more : Beside these State Conventions, we have a General C on Yen- 
tion, which legislates for the whole Church. And this General Con- 
vention, is composed, like Congress, of an Upper and Lower House. 
The former is composed of the Bishops — the latter, of an equal 
number of Clerical and Lay Representaiives, chosen by the State 
Conventions. And as no regulation, respecting Doctrine, Discipline, 
or anything else, can be made without the concurrence of both Hou- 
ses, and nothing done in the Lower House without the concurrence 
of the Lay Representatives, the Laity can controll all Legisla- 
tion. Consequently, there can be no Doctrine, or Regulation of Dis- 

* I borrow the following pertinent remarks upon this subject, from 
one of our Periodicals : " Will the immortal Washington be accu- 
sed of any leaning to anti-Republicanism ? Yet he ever cherished 
a strong and enlightened attachment to the Church, and lived and 
died in her Communion. The same may be said of most of his 
brethren in arms and in council, during that memorable struggle 
which resulted in the liberty and independence of our Country ; a 
John Jay, a Hamilton, a Chiet Justice Marshall, a Patrick 
Henry, a Madison, a Monroe, and many other of their distinguished 
compatriots — were all Churchmen. Enough, then, of such silly 
and unworthy imputations ; and it is strange that even assailants of 
the feeblest intellect do not perceive that accusations so unfounded 
and absurd can only operate to the advantage of the Church which 
they are intended to injure." 



87 

cipline, imposed upon them, but what they deliberately assent to. 
And as to the Interpretation of Scripture, Ministers and People are 
upon a perfect equality. They are all required to interpret it only 
in accordance with that Creed to which they have already subscribed. 
Does Methodism contain as much Republicanism ? Let us see : 
The Methodist Annual Conferences, and General Conference, (which 
Legislates for the whole body of Methodists,) are composed solely 
of Preachers — not a single Layman has a seat, to lift up his 
voice in* Defence of the Rights of the Laity. The Preachers 
do all the Legislation ! ! Besides, the Preachers alone re- 
ceive other Preachers on trial, and to full membership with the Con- 
ference ! The Preachers alone elect the Bishops. (?) This anti- 
Republican feature of Methodism has already caused one or more 
schisms among them, and no wonder. For many years, memorials 
against it have been sent up by the Laity, but in vain ! The views 
of these Preachers may be learned from the following extracts from 
the answer which the General Conference of 1828 made to their 
memorials : 

" The greet* Head of the Church himself, has imposed on us the 
duty of Preaching the Gospel, °f administering its Ordinances, 
and of maintaining its Moral Discipline, among those over whom 
the Holy Ghost has made us Overseers" u Of Gospel Doctrines, 
Ordinances, and Mired Discipline, we do Believe that the Di- 
vinely Instituted Ministry are the Divinely authorized Ex- 
pounders and that the duty of maintaining them in their purify, 
and of not permitting our Ministrations to be authoritatively con- 
trolled by others, does rest upon us with the force of a moral obli- 
gation")! ! 

And yet these men, making these extraordinary claims, and pos- 
sessing such enormous power, charge our Clergy with wishing 
u to lord it over God's heritage," although we cannot make the least 
alteration in Constitution, Doctrine or Usage, without the co-operation 
of the Laity. 

Again : The Methodist Preachers in charge of Congregations, 
instead of being chosen by the People, are sent by the Conference* 
That is, the Preachers send the Preachers to whatever station they 
please, and the Laitv must receive them whether they like them or 
not ! And this will appear the more despotic when the power of 
these Preachers over their Congregations are understood. The 
Preacher appoints all the Class-leaders, and changes them at his will. 
He not only receives the members, but tries and expels them ! If 
a member be accused of anything contrary to the Discipline, he is 
tried in the presence of the Preacher, and before a Special Com- 
mittee, selected for the purpose. If a majority of them deem him 
guilty, and " the crime be such as is expressly forbidden by the 
word of God," the Preacher expels him. But if the Preacher deem 
him guilty while the majority of the Committee deem him innocent, 
the Preacher can refer his case to the Quarterly Conference, which 
is composed of Preachers, Exhorters, Stewards and Leaders, a ma- 



88 

jority of whom decide his fate. Or if the expelled member thinks 
himself aggrieved, he can appeal to the same Conference — but that 
Conference is composed solely of the Preachers and their Creatures. 
The despotism of this feature, however consists, not in the mere fact 
that the Preachers expel, but connected with the fact before mentioned 
— that Preachers make the Laws. Consequently, the Preachers are the 
Legislators, the Judges and the Executors ! Moreover, a member is 
expelled not merely for violating the Precepts of Scripture — but for 
breaking a regulation of man ! He is expelled for refusing to attend 
Class!* Thus, a man is deprived of what they conceive io be 
Church Communion, for disregarding an institution which is not 
even alluded to in Holy Scripture, much less prescribed as a con- 
dition of Church Membership; and which had no existence until the 
days of Wesley ! Of course, those who wish to submit to such a system, 
are at perfect liberty to do so. But certainly, Methodist preachers ought 
to be the last persons to accuse others of opposition to "Equality. 5 
Mr. A. has thrown out an insinuation against Forms of Prayer. 
It is impossible for me to do justice to so many points within so 
small a compass. But I feel bound to make a brief defence of 
this usage. Let me first observe, however, that such an insinu- 
ation proceeds with very ill grace, from a Methodist. Fletcher, 
Whitfield and Wesley, were in the habit of using these same forms 
to the day of their death. And, among the reasons which Wesley 
published against separation from the Church, may be found the fol- 
lowing passage : "The Prayers of the Church are not chaff; they 
are substantial food for any icho are alive to Cod" Again : In 
the letter from Wesley to the u Brethren in North America," which 
is contained in Mr. A.'s pamphlet, may be found this passage : "I 
have prepared a Liturgy little differing from that of the Church of 
England, which I advise all the Travel! ng Preachers to use on 
the Lord's day, in all the Congregations." But this Liturgy has 
been discarded, and the advice set at nought. Can the Methodists of 
the present day, be correctly called the followers of Wesley ? But, 
although they have laid aside the Litany and ordinary Sunday Service 
prescribed by Wesley, they have deemed it expedient to retain 
Forms for Special Occasions. If the reader will refer to the Disci- 
pline, he will find an abundance of them — all copied, too, from our 
Prayer-book — in the offices for Baptism, Communion, Burial of the 
Dead, Matrimonv and Ordination ! 

Forms were appointed by God himself, in the Mosaic Dispensa- 
tion. (See Num. 6: 24, 27. Deuter. 26: 5,11, 12, 15—21: 7, 8.) 
In the Temple Service, Forms of Prayer and Praise, together with 
Psalms, were used. (See Lightfoot and Home.) And every one 
knows that our Saviour and his Apostles, were accustomed to join 
regularly in that service. John the Baptist " taught his Disciples " 
to pray ; and our Saviour, himself, prescribed a Form of Prayer. 
He says : " When ye Pray, say, Our Father, &c." I believe this 

* For all these facts see the Methodist Discipline. 



89 

Form is used by all denominations. And if they can use one Form 
with sincerity, why not another ? Again : The early Christians 
followed the Jewish practice in this particular. We find a Form of 
Prayer in the fourth chapter of Acts. It is stated that the Disciples 
44 lifted up their voice to God, with one accord, and said, Lord, 
thou art God," &c. And that they were used in the ages next after 
the Apostles, is incontrovertibly proved from Ancient Authors. They 
are now used by all the old Churches. The Nestorian Church and 
the Malabar Church, (of which Dr. Grant and Dr. Buchanan have 
written) both have Liturgies. Dr. Buchanan attributes the preserva- 
tion of Christianty among the Christians of India, to their Liturgy. 
In private, Episcopalians are at liberty to lay aside prescribed 
Forms : but in Public Worship we think them preferable for many 
reasons, * some of which are, that the matter and language of our 
Prayers may be previously considered and well understood — that all 
the Congregation may join in them with unanimity — that they may 
take part in them by responses-— that whatever may be the deficiency 
of the Minister, the people may always have such Prayers as agree 
with the doctrines of the Church, such as are spiritual, elevating 
and dignified t — that the people may not hear prayers, but offer them, 



* One serious evil resulting from the extern pory method of Public 
Worship is, that a very small portion of the time is spent in devo- 
tion — the people, in a measure, cease to look upon the Sanctuary as 
u The House of Prayer " — and too generatly go to hear a Sermon, 
instead of to Pray. Dr. Franklin, in a letter to his daughter, very 
wisely cautioned her against this evil. Said he : u Go constantly to 
Church, whoever preaches. The act of devotion in the Common 
Prayer-Book, is your principal business there, and, if properly atten- 
ded to, will do more towards amending the heart, than Sermons 
generally can do. For they were composed by men of much greater 
piety and wisdom, than our common composers of Sermons can 
pretend to be ; and therefore I wish you would never miss the Prayer 
days." 

t A late London paper gives the following account of the Conver- 
sion of a Dissenter, by means of the Prayer-Book : " It happened 
not long ago in Wales, {haud Jicta loquimer) that a youngster was 
appointed to the Pastoral charge of a Dissenting Congregation. 
Dissent was low and the Church popular. Something must be done 
to revive the cause; accordingly a Lecture against the Prayer-Book 
was suggested to the youthful Minister, as an admirable method of ex- 
hibiting his own powers, and raising the Dissenting interest at . 

To this he had but one objection, which was, that he knew nothing 
about the Prayer-Book, except, in general, that it was Popish, and 
Formal, and so forth. However, he commenced his studies upon the 
dangerous volume, and dangerous it proved, for he found to his 
amazement, a body of devotion, scriptural, spiritual, edifying. 
In a word, he renounced Dissent, and is now a warmly devoted son 
and Minister of the Established Church." 



90 

and that they may not be occupied in admiring the beauties, or criti- 
cising the errors, of the Minister's prayers, when they should be 
engaged in devotion. And do not all Denominations use Forms of 
Prayer ? Most Hymns and Psalms contain Prayers and Praises 
addressed directly to God. Should not the heart accompany them ? 
And if they can sing heartily with a Form, why cannot we pray 
heartily with a Form ? Is it not inconsistent to censure Forms while 
continually using them in the shape of Hymns and Psalms ? 

u Crito, freely will rehearse 

Forms of Prayer and Praise, in verse : 

Why should Crito then suppose 

Forms are sinful, when in prose? 

Must my Form be deemed a crime, 

Merely for the want of rhyme ?" 
And after ail the objections made to Forms, are not Extemporary 
Prayers, Forms to the People? They are only Extemporary to 
the Minister. To the People who follow them, they are as really 
Forms, as if printed in a book. So, by either arrangement, the Peo- 
ple have a Form — and is it not better to have one that has been pre- 
scribed by the wisdom of the whole Church ? 

Lastly : Are these Extemporary Prayers really impromptu ? Are 
they not premeditated ?* The Presbyterian Directory recommends 
the matter, at any rate, which is the chief part — and every one 
knows that they are nearly the same, both in matter and language, 
Sunday after Sunday. 

Mr. A. has furnished some extracts from a late Charge of Bishop 
Mcllvaine. As I have never seen the Charge, I cannot say whether 
his quotations are more accurate than those from the Fathers, and 
Bisho? Hooker. Whatever Bishop Mcllvaine has said, it either 
agrees with our Standards, or it does not. If it does, I concur in the 
views which he has expressed. If it does not, how can he be a 
" man of God" — as Mr. A. admits he is — seeing he has subscribed 
to those Standards ? That u this man of God," however, is a tho- 
rough Churchman, is evident from the following quotations from his 
writings — the first from a Charge, and the second from a published 
Sermon : 



* A Correspondent of the a Churchman" states the following fact : 
4i Among those celebrated in modern times, in this Country, for their 
" beautiful" Prayers, was the late Rev. Mr. Christmas, of the Pres- 
byterian Sect. He died early in life* and deservedly beloved for 
many virtues. We are told by one who knew, that among his pa- 
pers were found almost all the Prayers he ever made in Public 
fully written out ! In his case, it is said the acute observer could 
detect when he departed from his Form — and particularly when he 
did make an Extemporaneous Prayer, as he was sometimes obliged 
to do, and again when he would lose the thread of his memoriter 
Form of Prayer. His Prayer was often written out and before 
him, as he delivered it to the Congregation, and to God." 



91 

u No, my brethren ! if you would promote the spirit of vital God- 
liness in the world, we must promote it in connection with, and 
by means of, that only body — the Church — which the Lord has 
built as the earthly house of its Tabernacle in this wilderness. You 
may as well expect your minds to be in health, while your bodies 
are diseased, as lhat the Spirit of Religion will nourish, while the Body 
of Religion, the Visible Church, is disordered." " Why not believe 
it, as well when it proves the unbroken descent of the Apostolic 
office, as when it witnesses to the canonical books of Holy Scrip- 
ture ? How can we suspect the Fathers of the Chuch, when they 
testify of the former ; without rendering their testimony suspicious, 
when they speak of the latter; yea, without casting entire doubtful- 
ness into the whole region of Historic Testimony 1 The care of the 
Church to preserve the Scriptures inviolate, is no more manifest in 
the History of Christianity, than her watchful care, in all ages and 
countries, and now, even among the long wasted and oppressed 
Christians of Oriental nations, to guard the descent of the 
Apostolic Office." 

The first passage teaches the absolute necessity of the Church, 
and the second teaches the doctrines of Apostolic Succession. What- 
ever difference of opinion may exist among Episcopalians, upon 
minor points, they are unanimous upon that which causes the great 
distinction between the Church and the various Denominations, and 
which is the main cause of all their opposition against us — the Epis- 
copal Succession from the Apostles. The u Episcopal Recorder" 
has recently contained two or three editorials in defence of this Doc- 
trine, which concluded with these passages : 

u All Christian Denominations around us practically concede the 
necessity of an Apostolic Succession for authority in the Ministry. 
But all Christian Denominations, excepting the Episcopal Church, 
fail entirely in establishing the fact of this Apostolical Succession, 
and are compelled, in their own case, ultimately to relinquish the 
claim. The Episcopal Church makes out its claim without the 
shadow of reasonable doubt, and in the clearest manner* If 
therefore, this Succession is necessary, an Episcopal Ministry is 
equally necessary, to a proper administration of the Gospel" 
The London Christian Observer was considered so Low Church, 
that its re-publication in this Country was recommended by " 230 
Ministers, of twelve different Denominations." And yet that Peri- 
odical recently uttered this sentiment: " H *e believe Apostolical Suc- 
cession to be a Scriptural Doctrine ; we are sure that Christ has 
never failed to have a Church upon Earth ; that he has Ordained a 
Perpetual Ministry in it; and that our own Church is grounded upon 
the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
the chief comer stone." 

Mr. A. has insinuated that our Clergy are opposed to the circula- 
tion of the Scriptures, and to the exercise of Private Judgment. In 
this he has done us great injustice. Do we not, on every occasion of 
Public Worship, read to our Congregations eight or ten Chapters 



92 

(including the Psalms of David,) of Holy Scripture ? Does thi? 
look as if we were afraid to give the People the Scriptures ? Let 
any one attend a Methodist Meeting, and perhaps he will hear one 
Chapter read on a Sunday, but no more ! Besides, we have Socie- 
ties, responsible to the Church, for the very purpose of circulating 
the Bible — which they are doing, too, quietly, but diligently. We 
prefer these Societies — First, Because they are responsible to the 
Church. Secondly, Because they do not expend an eighth of 
the Contributions in Salaries to Agents — they do the work 
gratuitously. And while some of us feel bound to make all our ex- 
ertions in this line of duty, in connection with the Church, of course, 
we have no objection that persons of other Denominations should cir- 
culate the Blessed Bible, (" without note or comment,*') in any way 
that they may think proper. We would rather see the Bible circu- 
lated apart from the Church, than not at all. And as to Private 
Judgment, it is only the abuse of it that we condemn. If n Metho- 
dist set at naught the rules of the Discipline, in the exercise of his 
44 private judgment," the Preacher expels him. He would call it an 
u unwarranted degree of Private Judgment," although those regu- 
lations were never dreamed of before the eighteenth Century. 

Mr. A. has attacked another usage of our Church. He says: 
44 Nor has the Papal Habit been laid aside to the present day. We 
say nothing against, because it is a trifling matter ; but let none deny 
but that it is purely Papal." Let the reader note, that that which is 
44 purely Papal" is a 44 trifling matter," in his judgment; and 
yet he is exceedingly concerned for Protestantism ! And was not 
this " Papal Habit" worn by Fletcher, Whitfield, and Wesley ? And 
even now, the engravings of Wesley, in Methodist Books, repre- 
sent him with this " Papal Habit" on ! But it is very incorrect to 
term it a 44 Papal Habit." What is it that constitutes any usage or 
Doctrine, Papal ? The mere fact that it prevails in the Church of 
Rome ? If so, then Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, &c, &c M 
are all Papists — because, in common with the Church of Rome, they 
hold the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, and the 
Doctrines ef the Trinity, Atonement, and others. Nothing can be 
more- injurious to Protestantism, than these indiscrimate and ground- 
less applications of the term " Papal." But they must soon cease : 
the People are beginning to investigate for themselves, and wo to the 
Pastor who has practised this imposition. 

At least two of the most distinguished Continental Reformers, 
were in favor of retaining these Clerical Garments in the English 
Church. When Bucer was consulted with respect to them, he re- 
plied : 4 ' Since these Garments had been used by the Jlncient Father s^ 
before Popery, and might still be of good use to the weak, when 
well understood, * * * he thought the retaining of them expedient" 
In this opinion, Peter Martyr concurred. (See Burnet's Hist, of 
Ref. Part 2, page 153.) Here, these men admit that they were "expe- 
dient," and that they had been used by the Ancient Christians b fore 
Popery, Thus Mr. A. is contradicted by the very class of Reform- 



93 

ers for which he has most regard. It would be very easy to adduce 
Testimony from the Ancient Canons and Authors, that these Gar- 
ments were used in the Primitive Church, but as it is admitted by 
Bucer and Peter Martyr, it cannot be necessary. Let the reader 
remember that similar Garments were expressly prescribed by the 
Almighty, in the days of Moses (Exodus, chap. 28) ; indeed, Gar- 
ments incomparably more costly and splendid than those used by us.* 
But I have a witness in their favor, of great authority with the Me- 
thodists. Dr. A. Clarke, in his Comments on the Chapter just refer- 
red to, after making some remarks upon the appropriateness of the 
Levitical vestment, says : " Should not the Garments of those who 
now Minister in Holy Things, be emblematical of the Things in which 
they Minister ? Should they not be for glory and beauty, expressive 
of the dignity of the Gospel Ministry — and that " beauty of Holi- 
ness" inculculated thereby ? The white Surplice in the service of 
the Church, is almost the only thing that remains of those ancient 
and becoming Vestments which God recommended to be made for 
glory and for beauty. Clothing, expresive of office, is of more con- 
sequence than is generally imagined" And here I would ask — If 
Wesley and Clarke advocated so many things (as the reader has seen,) 
which the Methodist Preachers of the present day condemn, ought 
not their People to consider where these variations from their Standards 
and Fathers, will end ? The black gown is worn by the Presbyte- 
rian Preachers of the Kirk of Scotland. The black gown is not ex- 
clusively Clerical — we wear it in our Office as Teachfrs. The 
Surplice (white dress,) is the emblem of our Priestly Office, which 
Dr. Clarke so highly commended. The former is worn by College 
and University Professors, and also by the Judges of the United 
States Supreme Court. 

Again : Dr. Jarvis, who has travelled extensively in Europe, states, 
that the Lutherans of Europe 4t wear Surplices ; not merely the sim- 
ple Garment of white linen which we use, but the more ornamen- 
tal AND COSTLY GARMENT USED IN THE CHURCH OF RoME."t And 



* In speaking of our Clerical Garments, Mr. A. has been guilty 
of some exaggeration. He says : " Exchanging their Gorgeous 
Robes two or there times during a Service." Robes, made 
wholly of black silk and white linen, cannot, with propriety, be 
termed u Gorgeous." This is the difference between our Garments 
and those worn in the Church of Rome — ours are plain and simple. 
Again : It is an error to say, that they are M exchanged two or 
three times during a Service." They are never changed but 
once, and oftentimes not at all. Alas ! alas ! when Christian Mini- 
sters will resort to such means to excite prejudice. I would here 
add, that this practice, in our Church, is one of custom, not of law. 
Our Clergy often dispense with them in the country, and in " smoky 
private dwellings." 

t " Address," p. 21. The Doctor has mentioned other facts rela- 
ting to the usages of European Protestants, which show that they 



94 

Yet, these Lutherans are the original Protestants ! Dr. Parker, 
a Presbyterian Preacher of Philadelphia, has recently published a 
Sermon in opposition to the Church, in which, however, he made the 
following concessions : u Music, in its most highly cultivated state, may 
be made the vehicle of holy and acceptable praise to God. * * * * So 
the black, Clerical Robe, with its associations of classical learning 
and of a Sacred Office * * * * hallowed, as it is, by the usage of 
olden time, creates a spontaneous feeling of respect which may, 
perhaps, rather help than hinder the impressions of truth. As a 
Church, we have probably lost by laying aside the Organ and the 
Robe, and being slow to resume them on account of a prejudice, con- 
necting them, in our minds, with the showy trappings of the Papacy." 
And Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, and one of the most dis- 
tinguished Congregational Preachers, some years ago observed, in a 
conversation with one of our Clergy — u There is one thing in your 
Church, which I wish was introduced into our own — I mean, the 
white Surplice — it is so very becoming." 1 would add, that similar 
Garments are used in the Greek Church, and all the Oriental 
Churches. Surely, then, if they are " purely Papal," there are very 
few Protestants left. 

Before I conclude, I must notice one more charge which Mr, A, 
has made against the English Church. He represents it as having 
persecuted Mr. Wesley. But the persecution (if any,) could not 
have amounted to much, as he voluntarily remained in it to his death. 
And if Wesley undertook (as Mr. A. asserts,) to establish an inde- 
pendent organization in this Country, every one will admit that the 
Church exercised extraordinary forbearance and clemency in not ex- 
communicating him. That he was treated roughly by some of the 
members of the Church, is very possible. But when all the cir- 
cumstances are understood, no one can feel much surprise. Wesley's 
irregularities, together with the fanaticism and extravagant frenzies 
which followed from his Preaching, were naturally calculated to ex- 
cite against him much indignation and opposition. Wesley had the 
same rights as other Clergymen. He could have obtained a Parish, 
if he had wished. But no : he wished to roam at large, and Preach 
in other Ministers' Pulpits, as he thought expedient. Such conduct 



resemble the Church of Rome much more than we do, notwithstand- 
ing the out-cry of 4 " Puseyism," " Popery," &o. He says the Lu- 
therans u observe all the Festivals and Fasts, and Saints' Days, 
which we do." u They use the sign of the Cross, not only in Bap- 
tism, but in Consecrating the Elements in the Lord's Supper. 
They have Altars, with Lights burning upon them ; and not 

MERELY A CROSS, BUT A CRUCIFIX IN THE CENTRE." " They bow 

at the name of Jesus." And Dr. Jarvis states, that the Calvinists of 
Prussia (among whom is the celebrated M. Merle d'Aubigne,) have 
t4 an Altar with a Cross upon ft." Now, do not these facts show, 
that the charges of Popery, brought against us, are utterly unfounded ? 
Do they not show that the change, is in our accusers, and not in us f 



95 

as this would not be allowed in any Denomination. A few extracts 
from his Biographer, Mr. Southey, will set the matter in its true 
light': " Because he Preached an enthusiastic and dangerous Doc- 
trine, which threw his hearers into convulsions,* he was properly, 
by most Clergymen, refused the use of their Pulpits. " (Vol. 2, 
page 330.) u But Wesley continued, with his constitutional fervor, 
to Preach the Doctrines of Instantaneous Regeneration, Assurance, 
and Sinless Perfection. These Doctrines gave just offence, and be- 
came still more offensive when promulgated by Unlettered men, with 
all the vehemence and self-sufficiency of fancied Inspiration"] u He 
related cures wrought by his Faith and Prayers, which he conside- 
red and represented as positively Miraculous" (Vol. 2, page 19.) 
u This Faith was so strong, that it Sufficed, sometimes, to cure not 
only himself, but his horse also." (lb. page 20.) " His notions of 
Diabolical Agency went further than this : he imputed to it many of 
the accidents and discomforts of life — disease, bodily hurts, storms, 
and earthquakes, and nightmare : he believed that Epilepsy was 
often, or always, the effect of Possession, and that most madmen 
were demoniacs. A belief in Witchcraft naturally followed from 
these premises." (lb. page 137.) One of Mr. Wesley's Lay- 
Preachers, (George Bell) " attempted to restore a blind man to sight 
— touched his eyes with spittle, and pronounced the word Ephpiia- 
tha" ! (lb. page 247.) Of course, he failed. Mr. Southey says 
that Wesley " published, as plainly Miraculous, an account of an 
instantaneous cure wrought by this man" ! ! (Page 246.) Wesley 
afterwards expelled this man, as he turned Prophet, and like Miller, 
predicted the end of the world as at hand ! (Pp. 249, 250.) Sou- 
they adds : " This ignorant enthusiast became an ignorant Infidel" ! 
Again : Southey speaking of the effects of Methodism upon 
society, says it " substituted a Sectarian, in the pi >ce of a Catholic 
Spirit; and by alienating them from the National Church, weakened 
the strongest cement of social- order, and loosened the ties whereby 



* Southey says, that in consequence of the example of Wesley in 
employing Lay-Preachers, a number of roving adventurers in all the 
intermediate grades between knavery and madness, took to Preaching, 
and brought opprobrium upon Religion itself. " One Magistrate in 
the County ol Middlesex, licensed fourteen hundred Preachers in 
the course of five years. Of six-and-thirty persons who obtained 
licenses at one Sessions, six spelled a Ministers of the Gospel"' in 
six different ways, and seven signed their mark ! One fellow, who 
applied for a license, being asked if he could read, replied : ■ Mother 
reads, and I 'spounds and 'splains' " (lb. page 388 : note.) 

t One of the leaders of the party which has recently seceded from 
the old body of Methodists — the Rev. Le Roy Sunderland — states, 
that after considerable inquiry into Animal Magnetism, he has disco- 
vered that the " effects so much rejoiced in by the Methodists, as be- 
ing produced by Religious affections, are really nothing more than 
Mesmeric influences" ! 



96 

men are bound to their native land. It carried disunion and 

DISCORD intO PRIVATE LIFE, BREAKING UP FAMILIES and FRIENDSHIPS." 

(lb. 377.) It would be easy to add many more such extracts — but 
I forbear. Let the reader connect with them, Wesley's own account 
of the Evil Fruits of Methodism, (See page 36,) and he will not 
wonder that many of the Pulpits were closed agninst him — and he 
will not wonder that some individuals, or even Clergymen, in their 
opposition to him, were carried beyond the bonds of propriety. The 
reader must not however understand these passages as applying to 
the Methodists of the present day. Wesley, towards the close of 
his life, learned wisdom from experience, and discountenanced and 
restrained many extravagancies which he had previously enconraged. 
I beg the reader to understand that these facts are published to vind- 
cate the Church, and not to reflect upon the memory of Wesley. 
There is much in his character, in spite of some mistakes, worthy of 
admiration and imitation. His virtues as well as his faults are 
faithfully recorded by Southey — who endeavors apparently to ex- 
hibit an impartial picture of both Wesley and Methodism. 

But I must now bring my observations to a close. I regret that 
my limits have not allowed me to treat as fully upon some points — 
especially the grand point — Episcopal or Apostolical Succession — as 
I desired. But at the same time, enough has been said, I hope, to 
satisfy the candid and reflecting mind, with regard to the Episcopal 
Succession ; let the reader combine together all the facts which have 
been mentioned, and seriously reflect upon them, and I think he 
cannot refuse assent without violating every principle of historical 
evidence. 

One thing is certain — the Churchman is on the safe side. If no 
Apostolical Commission be necessary — we are, of course, as safe as 
others ; but if it be then their condition, is truely lamentable — no 
Ministry — no Sacraments, no Church. Is a Christian justifiable in 
running such a risk? Should not even the slightest probablity 
sway him in a matter of such moment ? There is scarcely any sin 
more severely censured in Scripture than schism. And even the 
possibility of being guilty of it, should determine the serious mind. 
The Primitive Christians regarded it as a most heinous offence. 
Hear what St. Ignatius (a contempoary of the Apostles) says re- 
specting it: " Be not deceived, brethren ; if any one follows him that 
makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of 
God." (Epist. Philad.) 

St. Ireneeus, says : u Those who tear and divide the unity of the 
Church, receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam. " 
(Lib. iii. c. 62.) St. Cyprian says : u Whosoever separates himself 
from the Church, declares himself an alien, and cuts himself off 
from the inheritance which the Church promises." " He cannot 
have God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother." 
(De Unit. Eccles.) This is strong language, but not stronger than 
we find in Scripture ; observe the earnestness of St. Paul upon this 
point : " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause 



i 



97 

divisions and offences, contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned 
and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus 
Christ, but their own belly : and by good words and fair speeches 
deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16: 17, 18.) And 
St. Jude, says : u These be they who separate themselves, sensual, 
having not the Spirit." Are not u Divisions" continually occuring ? 
If so — these passages must apply somewhere. Let no one be in- 
duced to think otherwise, from the circumstance that many good 
People are involved in them. For good People are often found in 
Sects which are not only Schismatical, but also Heretical. It is with 
Schism as with other sins — persons of genuine piety are led into it 
unconsciously. And while a Merciful God may Pardon the of- 
fence, he cannot but look upon it with displeasure — and it cannot 
but prove injurious in some way or other, both to him,* who com 



* Some of the most distinguished Dissenters who were instru- 
mental in causing divisions, " sorely lamented" it later in life. 

"Cartwright. — Cartwright's last words on his death-bed were, 
that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in 
the Church, by the schism he had been the great fomenter of, and 
wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the 
svorld that dislike he had of his former way." (Sir H. Yelverton's 
Preface to Morton's Episcopacy.) 

"Baxter. — I am much more sensible of the evil of schism, and 
of the separate humour, and of gathering parties, and making Sects 
in the Church, than I was heretofore, for the effects have shown us 
more of the mischiefs." [Baxter's Life, fyc.) 

Most of those who cause and encourage divisions, are very fear- 
ful of the increase of Popery. Let them mark what Baxter says 
respecting it. " Our divisions gratify the Papists, and greatly hazard 
the Protestant Religion, and that more than most of you seem to 
believe or to regard. 

" Popery will grow out of our divisions, by the odium, and scorn of 
our disagreements, inconsistencies, and multiplied Sects : they will 
persuade people that we must come for unity to them, or else run 
mad and crumble into the dust and individuals. Thousands have 
been drawn to Popery, or confirmed in it, by this argument already ; 
and I am persuaded that all the arguments else in Bellarmine, and all 
other books that ever were written, have not done so much to make 
Papists in England, as tae multitude of Sects among themselves. 
Yea, some Professors of Religious strictness, of great esteem for 
Godliness, have turned Papists themselves, when they were giddy 
and wearied with turnings, and when they had run from sect to sect, 
and found no consistency in any. 

" It shameth us, it grieveth,us to see and hear from England, and 
from New England, this common cry. We are endangered by 
divisions, principally because the self-conceited part of Religious 
Peo* le will not be ruled by their Pastors, but must have their way, 
aud will needs be rulers of the Church and of them. 

u You have made more Papists, than ever we are like to recover." 



98 

raits it, and to the cause of Religion. History proves nothing 
clearer, than this, that Schism ultimately leads to Heresy. A long 
period is sometimes required for the developement of this conse- 
quence—but sooner or later it is inevitable. And hence we are apt 
to overrate the good resulting from any particular Sect of modern 
origin— Methodism for instance. It is too young yet, to form u 
correct estimate of its fruits. It has already given birth to an im- 
mense number of divisions in this country and in England. And 
before another half-century shall roll away — most of them may fall 
into the most destructive Heresy. I pray that they may not ? But 
what safe-guard have they which other Sects had not. They have 
discarded the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Episcopal 
Succession, and the Liturgy— which have been considered, in every 
Age, (and still are by six-sevenths of Christendom) necessary to the 
preservation of the "Faith which was once delivered unto the 
Saints." Those Religious Communities of Europe founded by 
Luther and Calvin, are now overrun with Neology — an Arian and 
Infidel system, under the garb of Christianity. Samuel Laing, Esq., 
a Scottish Presbyterian, says : that " Geneva, the seat and centre 
of Calvinism, the fountain-head from which the pure and living 
waters of our Scottish Zion flow, the earthly source, the pattern, 
the Rome of our Presbyterian Doctrine and Practice, has fallen 
lower from her own Original Doctrine and Practice than ever Rome 
fell, Rome has still superstition ; Geneva has not even that sem- 
blance of Religion. In the head Church of the original seat of 
Calvinism, in a city of five and twenty thousand souls, at the only 
service on the Sabbath day— there being no evening service — I sat 
down in a Congregation of about two hundred females, and three 
and twenty males, mostly men of a former generation, with scarcely 
a youth, or boy or working man among them. In the afternoon, the 
only service in towns or in the country, is reading a chapter of the 
Bible to the children, and hearing them gabble over the Catechism in 
a way which shows they have not a glimpse of the meaning. A 
pleasure tour in the steam-boats, which are regularly advertised for a 
Sunday promenade round the lake, a pic-nie dinner in the country, 
and overflowing Congregations in the evening at the Theatre, the 
Equestrian Circus, the Concert Saloons, Ball Rooms, and Coffee 
Houses, are all that distinguish Sunday from Monday in that city, in 
which, three centuries before, Calvin moved the Senate and the 
People to commit to the flames his own early friend Servetus, the 
discover of the circulation of the blood, (?) and one of the first 
Philosophers of that Age, for presuming to differ in opinion and 
strength of argument from his own Religious dogma. This is action 
and re-action in Religious Spirit with a vengeance. In the village 
Churches, along the Protestant side of the Lake of Geneva —spots 
upon this earth specially intended, the traveller would say, to elevate 
the mind of man to his Creator by the glories of the surrounding 
scenery — the rattling of the billiard balls, the rumbling of the skittle 
trough, the shout, the laugh, the distant shots of the rifle gun clubs, 



99 

are heard above the Psalm, the Sermon, and the barren Forms of 
State-Prescribed Prayer, during the one brief service on Sundays, 
delivered to very scanty Congregations, in fact to a few females and 
a dozen or two old men, in very populous Parishes supplied with 
able and zealous Ministers." 

He also states that u in no country in Europe, Protestant or 
Catholic, is the Church attendance worse, the regard for the ordinary 
observance of Religious worship less, the Religious Indifference — not 
entitled to be called Infidelity, not so respectable as Infidelity, because 
not arising from any reasoning or thinking, wrong or right, about 
Religion — greater than in Protestant Switzerland, in the district ot 
our Calvinistic Mother-Church in and about Geneva.'' (Laing's Notes 
of a Traveller.) 

The same consequences have followed the abandonment of Episco- 
pacy in England and in this Country. Mr. Wilberforce mentions in his 
Diary, that a Mr. Hughes, a Dissenting Preacher, stated in his pre- 
sence that there was " not one in twenty of Doddrige's Pupils 
but who turned either Socinian, or tending that way ; and 
that all the Old Presbyterian places of worship were become 
Socinian Congregations" (Life of Wilberforce by his Sons, 
vol. 3, page 24.) Let the reader remember that Doddrige was a 
sincere and Orthodox Christian, but a Dissenter.* A Dissent* 
ing Publication states, that M out of 258 Presbyterian Congrega- 
tions in England ', 235 tvere, in the year 1832 f Unitarians" ! And 
now let us turn to our own Country. Where do Universalis m, and 
Unitarianism, most abound ? In the land of the Puritans ! A New 
England Periodical — the Witness and Advocate, makes the follow- 
ing statement: u The first Puritanical Church founded on the shores 
of New England is now Socinian. The same is true of a great 
multitude, founded by men who loved the truth, and were ready to 
die its in defence. And where now is that Institution of Learning 
which was reared by those who would have mourned and wept atthe 
thought of its present condition ? The former home of Puritanism 
is now the fountain-head of Unitarianism. An article in the 
>4 Presbyterian," (Feb. 12, 1842,) states, that there were form- 
erly, in the State of Maine, ten Presbyterian Churches, but 
now none! It further states, (which is well known) that in other 

* The effect of " Divisions" upon Missionary operations, is truly 
disastrous. Certain Methodist Missionaries in India, after having 
long labored with little or no success, determined to renounce Dissent, 
and enter the Church. Accordingly, they made application to the 
Bishop of Madras. " The Heathens tell us," said they, '• we would 
like your Religion very well, if there were not so many sorts of it* 
According to some statements in the " London Watchman," (Metho- 
dist) many Missionaries from various Sects in England and America, 
have been laboring for years in India, but scarcely anything has been 
done, except by the Church. Two or three of these Missionaries 
^ave labored seven years, and made only three converts ! 



100 

parts of New England, many Presbyterian Churches have become 
Congregational. Let this be connected with the fact that many of 
the Congregational Churches have become Unitarians and Universal- 
ists, and we have here the same melancholy result as in Europe. 
Now let the reader observe the contrast. Although Episcopacy is 
held by six-sevenths of Christendom, there is not a single genuine 
Episcopal Church in the whole World, that denies the Deity of our 
Blessed Lord. Can the Orthodox Christian demand a better proof 
than this, of the truth and utility of the Episcopal Succession ? Can 
the Orthodox Christian, who contemplates these facts, wonder that 
Churchmen adhere to this point with so much tenacity ? These 
facts (if nothing else,) clearly show, that in contending for the Epis- 
copal Succession, we are contending, as St. Jude enjoins, " for the 
Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.' * 

" Almighty God ! who hast built Thy Church upon the Founda- 
tion of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
Chief Corner Stone : grant that by the operation of the Holy Ghost, 
all Christians may be so joined together in Unity of Spirit, and in 
the Bonds of Peace, that they may be an Holy Temple, acceptable 
unto Thee." [Prayer Book, 

THE END, 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1t 



